Judgment · High Court · 2012

This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single J udge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of appro val granted vide order dated 8.5.2005 by the Director of Higher Education, Assam to the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Principal, Lakhimpur Commerce College.

#2. In pursuance of advertisement dated 6.1.2005, process for appointment to the post of Principal of the College was initiated and after interview held o n 4.6.2005, Respondent No.6 was placed at Sl No.1 by the Selection Committee. Th e appellant was placed at Sl. No.2. The appellant challenged the same before t his Court by submitting that Respondent No.6 was wrongly awarded 6 marks instea d of 5 for his qualification. The appellant was entitled to one mark in each of Research paper/article and thus, was entitled to be given 6 marks against 4 mar ks awarded to him. Further grievance was that meeting of the Governing Body was held without seven days prior notice which was mandatory.

#3. Claim of the appellant was contested. Director of Higher Education as wel l as Governing Body of the College filed affidavits. It was pointed out that int erview Board rightly applied the guidelines and Respondent No.6 was rightly fou nd to be suitable.

#4. Learned Single Judge held as follows : (cid:28)15. The advertisement reveals that the candidates eligible and selected by t he State Selection Board were construed to be qualified to apply for the post. The Interview Board treated both the petitioner and the Respondent No.5 to be eligible and summoned them for the interview to complete their evaluation for eventual recommendations. The guidelines prescribe not only the compositio n of the Interview Board, but also the norms of eligibility as well as the sch eme for awarding marks to the candidates for the various units of assessment f or academic and other heads of achievements. The make up of the Interview Boar d is in conformity with the guidelines and is a well represented body of hig hly qualified , knowledgeable and experienced persons in the academic field p romising a dispassionate and objective evaluation of the candidates. A close sc rutiny of the marking pattern for the academic qualification per se does not r ender the view taken by the Interview Board in awarding the credit marks in th e HSLC examination to be illogical or outrageously irrational or insensible to merit repudiation thereof. The marking pattern for the academic qualificati on , having conceived marks vis a vis the over all pursuit of candidates in t he examinations as enumerated therein, in the estimate of this Court , the same does not warrant reference to the percentage of marks secured by him/her fo r working out the average of marks in these examinations to compute the credit mark for HSLC examination. True it is, that as demonstrated by the learned c ounsel for the petitioner, if a candidate is awarded maximum marks in terms of the marking system for different segments of the evaluation, there is a possi bility ,if the scheme followed by the Interview Board is adopted that the tot al tally would exceed 100 ( if the candidate is a Gold Medallist in Post grad uation) the same per se would not render its(Interview Board) view unsustainab le. The marking system for academic qualification having prescribed , the maxim um marks to be awarded for the achievements on various counts, the same would a ct as the ceiling therefor and thus any mark in excess thereof cannot be allo tted. If the average of marks secured in the three examinations is above 10, the maximum, awardable would still be 10. In such a case, the eventuality of the t otal secured by a candidate can never exceed 100. The hypothesis on which the p etitioner relies therefore does not clinch the issue in her favour.

#16. As has been clarified by the Governing Body in its affidavit that whi le awarding the marks for (cid:28)Research papers and Articles (cid:29) the standard and quali ty of the work is evaluated and the same is not contingent only on the number of such presentations by the candidate concerned. In other words , it has been s ought to be conveyed that one mark/unit for each Research paper/Article constit utes the maximum appreciation therefor and depending on appraisal of the worth and quality thereof the candidate may secure even less than one mark per litera ry work. Having regard to the office to which the recruitment is contemplated and the ultimate objective of the appreciation of such academic contribution, t his comprehension of the Interview Board is not in defiance of logic and inste ad is informed with rationality and objectivity. This coupled with the fact tha t the allotted marks on each head would be an average of those awarded by the individual members of the Interview Board who in the case in hand are eight i n number, the marks accorded to the petitioner and the Respondent No.4 under th is head cannot ipso facto be said to be incredulous or impossible.

#17. Having regard to the competing claims of the parties , vis a vis t heir assessment on account of administrative expertise and extra curricular act ivities and in absence of any gross anomaly committed by the Interview Board in that regard, the petitioner’s plea with regard thereto also cannot be susta ined. The original records of selection disclose a conscious application of mi nd by the members of the Interview Board to the guidelines and the norms to b e uniformly applied to all the candidates yielding the ultimate result on the basis of which it recommended the Respondent No.5 and the petitioner in that o rder of merit for appointment to the post involved. The records convincingly bea r out the progressive steps of the selection process undertaken by the Interview Board including the marks awarded by its members and the eventual score of t he candidates by obtaining an average thereof. No anomaly as such is discernibl e to conclude unwarranted, arbitrary or illogical deviation from the guidelines palpably vitiating the selection process. (cid:28) It was also held that there was no illegality in holding the meeting of the Governing Body without notice of seven days.

#5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

#6. It is clear from the finding recorded by learned Single Judge that after due verification of all criterion, the Selection committee found Respondent No.6 to be most suitable candidate for the post of Principal. This finding could no t be shown, in any manner, to be erroneous. The recommendation of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with unless there is an illegality or irrationa lity which, has not been established in the present case.

#7. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors vs. Dr. B.S.Mahajan and Ors, (1990) 1 SCC 305, it was observed : (cid:28) & & &. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relevant merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fi t for a particular post or not has tobe decided by the duly constituted Selectio n Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such exper tise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on li mited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularly in the constitu tion of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved male f ides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case th e University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates af ter going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called co mparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. (cid:28)

#8. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the le arned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.