* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7015/1999
% 12th November, 2013
SH. RAJAPRAKASH P. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Narda Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the selection and appointment of Assistant Professors by the respondent no.2/School of Planning and Architecture. Selection process in issue is of the year 1998. It is prayed that the select list be set aside and fresh applications be called and interviews be again held for the post of Assistant Professors in Architecture.
W.P.(C) No.7015/1999 Page 1 of 3
2. On a query put to the counsel for the petitioner, he does not dispute and it also could not be disputed, that, the post in question is not an automatic promotion post but is a selection post. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner is only to be considered for selection. Even if petitioner meets the criteria for being considered there is no automatic selection because he has to come on the select list as per the panel prepared by the selection committee.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that respondent nos.6 and 7 have been wrongly selected, however, this aspect cannot give any cause of action to the petitioner in this writ petition because the issue is not of the fact that if appointments of respondent nos.6 and 7 are set aside petitioner will automatically get appointed. Petitioner could only have been appointed if his name was found in the select list/panel prepared by the selection committee and admittedly there is no averment in the writ petition and nor is it the factual position that the petitioner was selected by the selection committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and his name figures in the select list/panel of successful candidates.
4. The aforesaid facts show that petitioner has no cause of action to challenge the selection committee's decision of preparing of the panel. There is no cause of action argued before me which is averred in the W.P.(C) No.7015/1999 Page 2 of 3 writ petition for challenge to the panel on any legal basis. I may also state that it is settled law that this Court does not substitute itself for decision of an expert body or the selection committee and which is the only body which is otherwise entitled to consider the entitlement of a person to be selected.
5. There is a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that entitlement to consideration does not automatically mean entitlement to appointment and entitlement to appointment is basically to be judged by the selection committee which is best equipped to do so and not by the Courts. There is no cause of action in the writ petition as to how the petitioner has been wrongly not put in the select list. Merely because respondent nos.6 and 7 have been wrongly put in the select list, and even if their appointments were cancelled, yet petitioner cannot get appointment because his name is not found in the select list for the post of an Assistant Professor as prepared by the selection committee in the meeting.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
W.P.(C) No.7015/1999 Page 3 of 3