High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1256/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Project Manager under the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Annexure-6 advertisement dated 03.03. 2010 was issued for filling up the post of Project Manager, in which the qualifi cation and experience required for the post was indicated as follows:- (cid:28)Qualification and Experience: Civil/Chemical Engineer with B. Tech/M.Te ch/Ph.D from recognized University/Technical Institute. At least 5 years experie nce in a senior position in construction related work with administrative experi ence in scientific Project management in reputed firm/research establishment. Pe rsons having experience in building/Civil construction works, estimating, costin g, tendering, preparation of construction bills etc. will be preferred. (cid:29)
Facts
In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner along with respond ent No.5 and others offered their candidatures in acceptance of which they were invited for the selection. Pursuant to the selection conducted, the respondent N o.5 having been appointed, the petitioner has challenged the same primarily on t he ground of lack of experience of the said respondent in terms of the experienc e indicated in the advertisement dated 03.03.2010. Referring to the certificates on which the respondent No.5 placed reliance in support of his candidature, it is the case of the petitioner that the said certificates did not meet the requir ement of the experience.
Legal Reasoning
Countering above plea of the petitioner, the respondents both official a nd private have contended that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is not at al l sustainable in as much as the respondent No.5 did have the experience as envis aged in the advertisement. It has also been stated that the selection committee, an expert body having considered the candidatures in reference to the documents annexed and thereafter having selected, the respondent No.5 on the basis of his performance in the interview, the petitioner cannot call in question such decis ion of the expert body. I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have al so heard Mr. S.K. Barkakati, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Goswami, learned CGC, representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Also heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the entire materials available on records, my findings and conclusions are r ecorded below. As per the advertisement referred to above, a candidate for the post of Project Manager was required to have 5 years experience in a senior position in construction related work with administrative experience in Scientific Project M anagement in reputed firm/research establishments. Persons having experience in building/civil construction works etc. was to be preferred. By Annexure-8 commun ication dated 08.09.2010, the petitioner was furnished with the information soug ht for under RTI Act 2005, regarding experience of the respondent No.5. For a re ady reference the educational qualification and experience of the respondent No. 5 as reflected in the said letter is quoted below:- Name of the Candidate Degree Year of passing Jnyanada Prasad Sarmah Abhoypur North Guwahati P.O- College Nagar Dist- Kamrup, Assam, Pin-781031 Worked as project Manage r for Ganpati Construction from April, 2009 to June, 2010 Academic Qualification Marks secured B.E. (Civil) Experience 1997 71% HS Science 67% 1991 Wormed as Project Manager of Liyod Insul ation (India) Ltd. from Oct, 2008 to March 2009. Worked as Project Engineer for Emami Ltd. from J an, 2007 to Oct, 2008. HSLC 77% 1989 Worked as Project Engineer for Badri Rai & Co. f or March, 2005 to December, 2006 Worked as Project Engineer for Dev Real Estate ( P) Ltd from June, 1998 to March 2005 r) from Feb, 1997 to April, 1998. Worked as Plant Engineer for J.C Bose (Contracto The petitioner has also annexed the certificates dated 01.03.2010, 05.04 .2009, 10.10.2008, 21.04.2006 and 10.07.2001, issued in favour of the resp ondent No.5 by different organizations. If the experience referred to in the sai d certificates are counted, leaving aside the further experience gained by the r espondent NO.5, then also such experience confirms the requirement of the advert isement. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cer tificate dated 21.04.2006 having regard to the work experience of the respondent No.5 under the particular organization namely Ms. Bardri Rai and Company, the s aid certificate ought to have been issued by the officials of the said Company o nly and not by the Executive Engineer (Civil), IIT, Guwahati. On perusal of the said certificate, it is seen that M/s Bardri Rai and Company was engaged by the IIT, Guwahati for construction works and the respondent No.5 was engaged as Proj ect Engineer under the said organization. Since the organization was engaged by the IIT for its construction works, the Executive Engineer IIT, Guwahati had the knowledge about working of the Respondent No.5 as Project Engineer under the sa id organization. In such circumstances, if the certificate dated 21.04.2006 was issued by the Executive Engineer IIT, it cannot be said that the certificate is of no help to the respondent No.5.
Decision
Even if we leave aside the said certificate dated 21.04.2006, the other work experience certificates annexed to the writ petition, would go to show that the respondent No.5 had the 5 years required experience in terms of the adverti sement. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition and also the annexure-8 information dated 08.09.2010 has submitted that the work experience shown in the said documents goes beyond t he respective date of issuance of those certificates and thus the said certifica tes are not believable. However, on perusal of the said certificates, there is n othing to show that the experience in respect of the respondent No.5 goes beyond the date of issuance of the certificate. What was certified by the said certifi cates is about the engagement of the respondent NO.5 in the respective organizat ions and his gathering of experience from the date of appointment. If the respon dent No.5 had worked with those organizations even after issuance of the said ce rtificates, merely placing reliance on the said certificates and the respective dates of issuance of the same, it cannot be said that the periods beyond the dat e of issuance of the certificates are fictitious. Above apart, it is for the expert body selection committee to evaluate a nd consider the candidature in reference to the related documents and applying t he yardsticks and parameters applicable in such selection. In absence of any al legation of mala fide exercise of power and violation of any statutory provision s, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot sit on appeal over the findin gs recorded by the selection committee. Moreover, the members of the selection c ommittee are also not party respondents to this proceeding. For all the aforesaid reasons, the ground on which the writ petition is structured, cannot be accepted and accordingly the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. Consequently it is dismissed without, however, any order as to cost.