Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and Another ……… v. Shailendra Kumar Singh and Another

appointment was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who by the impugned order, set aside the selection.

3. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both 2 appeals, they are being decided together. For convenience, the facts of Special Appeal No. 216 of 2018 are taken into consideration.

4. It is submitted by the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition as the petitioner Shailendra Kumar Singh had himself participated the selection process and, after being declared unsuccessful, challenged the same. Such a course impermissible under the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as settled in D. Sarojakumar v. R. Helen Thilakom and Others (2017) 9 SCC 478. It is contended that there was no pleading in the writ petition questioning the equivalence of the degree of Pradeep Kumar Barve (B.Sc. in Radiation Technology) vis-à- vis B.Sc. in Radiology/Radiography, and in the absence of such pleading, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant lacked the requisite qualification. Reliance was placed on Bacchaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491, wherein it was held that courts cannot base findings on facts not pleaded.

5. It is further urged that appellant-Pradeep Kumar Barve possessed the requisite educational qualification and experience as per the advertisement. He was employed as a Radiographic Technician in the Department of Radio- Diagnosis at AIIMS, Raipur, and had more than two years and nine months’ experience in the field of Radiography. The Screening and Selection Committee, comprising medical experts, had duly examined the equivalence of the degrees 3 and found no substantive difference except in nomenclature. The syllabus of B.Sc. Radiation Technology was found substantially identical that of B.Sc. Radiology/ Radiography.

6. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his opinion for that of the expert Selection Committee, contrary to the settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 372, holding that courts should refrain from sitting in appeal over the decisions of expert bodies unless mala fides are established. No allegation of mala fide was made against the Selection Committee or any of its members. It is also contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation. Service matters, being personal in nature, can be challenged only by an aggrieved candidate, not by way of PIL, as held in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others (1998) 7 SCC 273, B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees’ Association (2006) 11 SCC 731 and Girish Srivastava and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 105 SCC 707.

7. It is also urged that although the appellant- Pradeep Kumar Barve had mentioned the word “pursuing” against his undergraduate degree in the application form, he had already submitted his second-year marksheet and, prior to the written test held on 27.02.2017, had obtained his final 4 degree. Therefore, as on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee and keeping in view that, under Clauses 13(9) and 13(11) of the Statute, the Committee may consider applications received after the date specified advertisement and may also consider any other suitable candidates suggested by a Committee member or otherwise brought its notice that he fulfilled the essential qualification. The IIT Statutes further empower the Selection Committee to consider candidates who acquire the requisite qualification before the date of selection.

8. Learned counsel argued that the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar and members of the Selection Committee was wholly unwarranted, as there was no finding of mala fides or procedural impropriety. The Registrar was not even part of the Selection Committee, nor was he responsible issuing advertisement or appointment letter. The imposition of costs of ₹25,000/- was also without justification.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order, contending that the appellant- Pradeep Kumar Barve did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application and, therefore, was not eligible to be considered.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. It is not disputed that the advertisement dated

21.08.2015 prescribed M.Sc. Radiology or B.Sc. 5 Radiology/Radiography as the essential qualification. It is also undisputed that Pradeep Kumar Barve possessed a degree in B.Sc. Radiation Technology from a recognized institution, along with more than two years of relevant experience, and had obtained more than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for SC category. The Selection Committee, comprising experts in the medical field, after detailed deliberation, held the said degree to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

12. The writ petitioner, Shailendra Kumar Singh, having participated in the selection process with knowledge of the eligibility criteria and having failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks, was estopped subsequently challenging the process. It is a settled proposition that a candidate who takes part in a selection process without protest cannot turn around and question the same upon being declared unsuccessful. This principle of estoppel by conduct has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486; D. Sarojakumar v. R. Helen Thilakom, (2017) 9 SCC 478; Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others (2013) 11 SCC 309; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Karunesh Kumar & Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1706. The writ petitioner, having failed to secure even the minimum prescribed marks for the Scheduled Caste category, could not be treated as an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 Hence, the writ petition was not maintainable.

13. It stands established that the degree held by the appellant, B.Sc. (Radiation Technology), was from a recognized University and was duly examined by the Screening and Selection Committees comprising domain experts. The said Committees found the curriculum and syllabus of B.Sc. Radiation Technology substantially identical that of B.Sc. Radiology/Radiography. Once such equivalence is determined by experts, the Court cannot sit in appeal over their academic opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372, University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491, and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 27, has categorically held that courts must defer to the views of expert bodies unless mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions are shown. No such infirmity is established here.

14. It is also evident that the writ petition contained no specific pleading challenging the equivalence of appellant’s degree or alleging that the Selection Committee had acted beyond its jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, therefore, fell in manifest error in returning findings on a point neither pleaded nor substantiated by evidence. The law is well-settled that no relief can be founded on facts not pleaded — Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC

491. 7

15. The learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his own assessment in place of that of the expert Selection Committee, which is impermissible in law. Judicial review of selections made by expert bodies is confined to examining procedural fairness, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules not to reassess academic or technical equivalence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 305, has cautioned that courts should not act as appellate authorities over decisions involving academic or professional expertise.

16. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar and members of the Selection Committee found wholly unwarranted. The record does not disclose any act of mala fide, bias, or procedural impropriety on their part. In Union of India and Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in absence of proven misconduct, no punitive directions can be sustained. Moreover, the Registrar was not even a member of the Selection Committee, and hence the adverse direction against him was wholly misconceived.

17. The learned Single Judge also erred in treating the writ petition as one in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Service-related disputes are purely personal and cannot be entertained as PILs. This principle is conclusively laid down in 8 Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731, Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 and Girish Srivastava & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 707. The petitioner had no public cause or representative capacity and was therefore not entitled to invoke PIL jurisdiction.

18. Accordingly, both the Special Appeals are allowed, the judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 764 of 2017, Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee & others, is set aside, the selection and appointment of appellant Pradeep Kumar Barve to the post of Junior Technical Superintendent (Radiology) in IIT Roorkee upheld, and the directions pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and imposition of costs are quashed.

19. There shall be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) Mamta (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 9