Shri Ranbir Singh vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1017 Del

                                                                       REPORTABLE

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of Decision : July 14, 2008


+     WP(C) No.3473/2007

#     SHRI RANBIR SINGH                         ...     Petitioner.

!                                         Mr. M.S. Dahiya, Advocate
                         Versus

$     GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
      UNIVERSITY, KASHMIRE GATE   ...                   Respondent

^                                         Ms. G.D. Goel and Mr. Sanjiv Goel,
                                          Advocates.
                                          Mr. Sushil Kumar, Joint Registrar and
                                          Mr. A.K. Khatri, Assistant Registrar in
                                          person.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

    1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the
       judgment?
    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1 The petitioner Shri Ranbir Singh has filed this writ petition

under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of

Mandamus against the respondent directing it to appoint him on the post

of Lab Assistant Grade-I.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2 The respondent i.e., Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University is a university created under Indraprastha Vishwavidhalaya

Act, 1998. The respondent had issued an advertisement in the month of

June, 2006 and invited applications for non-teaching posts viz., Technical

Assistant; Lab Assistant Grade-I; Exam. Asstt./UDC; Jr.DEO; Junior

Assistant/LDC and Lab Assistant Grade-II. The applications for these

posts were also called for from the employment exchange. Here, in this

writ petition this court is concerned with the filling up of 10 vacant posts

for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 by

the institution of the respondent. The respondent had received 407

applications for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I pursuant to

advertisement issued in June, 2006, out of which 283 candidates were

found eligible. Besides that the respondent had also received 200

applications from the employment exchange. Since large number of

applications were received by the respondent for filling up the vacant

posts of Lab Assistant Grade-I, the respondent decided to hold a written

screening test of objective nature comprising of 40 questions each of 5

marks (total marks-200) for one hour duration on the following topics:

      i)     Maths                 -        50 marks
      ii)    Science               -        50 marks

iii) General Knoweldge/Social Science - 50 marks

iv) Computer awareness - 50 marks

3 The petitioner was also one of the 483 candidates who were

found eligible to take written screening test for the post of Lab Assistant

Grade-I. The written screening test for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I

was held by the respondent on 19th November, 2006. The result of the

written screening test was displayed by the respondent on its notice

board and was also put on its website in January, 2007. Besides placing

the combined result of the written screening test on the website and the

notice board, the respondent had also displayed the result of written

screening test on the notice board and also on its website category wise

i.e., for general category, OBC category and SC/ST category separately.

The petitioner was one of the candidates who had qualified the written

screening test held by the respondent for short listing of candidates for

the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I. In fact, he had topped the list of

successful candidates who had qualified the written screening test for

shortlisting of candidates to be called for viva voce examination to be

held by the duly constituted DPC. The respondent decided to call 38

candidates in total including general, OBC and SC/ST category candidates

from amongst those who had qualified the written screening test on the

basis of merit in the said test for filling up of 10 vacant posts of Lab

Assistant Grade-I in its institution. The respondents sent call letters for

interview to all the 38 candidates strictly in order of their merit in the

written screening test and they were asked to appear for interview before

the duly constituted DPC on 15th February, 2007. The Selection

Committee (DPC) constituted by the respondent comprised of the

following:

1. Prof. Subhash Wadhva VC's Nominee-Chairperson Principal, IGIT

2. Dr.(Mrs.) Suchitra Kumar Registrar's Nominee-Member Dy. Registrar, GGSIP University

3. Shri T.K. Jain, DHE's Nominee-Member Dte. Of Hr. Edu., Govt. of NCT of Delhi

4. Shri Sushil Kumar Vern SC/ST Representative-Member Dy. Registrar, GGSIPU University

5. Prof. P.C. Sharma Expert Member Dean, USBT, GGSIP University

6. Prof. B.V. R. Reddy Expert Member Professor, USIT, GGSIP University

4 Out of the 38 candidates who were called for interview, only

35 including the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on

15th February, 2007. The Selection Committee after interviewing all the

35 candidates recommended the following selected candidates for their

appointment to the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I vide its minutes dated

15th February, 2007 itself:

UR CATEGORY (Select Pannel)

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Shri Sunil Kumar 1332

2. Shri Ajit Pratap 1348

3. Shri Madhur Gupta 1336

4. Shri Vikas Gupta 1346

5. Ms. Amita Rawat 1351

6. Shri Kamalkant Agarwal 1260

7. Shri Ravi Verma 1047

UR CATEGORY (Waiting Pannel)

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Ms. Nidhi Mago 1131

2. Shri Anish Bhatia 1359

3. Shri Satish Chandra Madhwal 1031

4. Ms. Rinkle Lalwani 1293

SC CATEGORY (Select Pannel)

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Shri Ashok Kumar 1350

SC CATEGORY (Waiting Pannel)

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Shri Suneel Kumar 1225

OBC CATEGORY

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Shri Chetan Anand 1337

2. Ms. Chitra Singh 1412

OBC CATEGORY (Waiting Pannel)

S.No. Name of the Candidates Roll No.

1. Shri Amit Saini 1206

5 The name of the petitioner did not find mention in the final

select list. He, therefore, made a representation against his non selection

by the respondent on 12th March, 2007, which was rejected by the

respondent vide its letter No. F.1(4)(57)/2006/Estt./1840 dated 31st

March, 2007. Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation against his

non-selection to the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I, the petitioner has filed

this writ petition wherein following prayer have been made:

"a. issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I; and b. pass any further order/orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the facts stated in the case."

6 The respondent in response to notice of this writ petition has

filed its counter affidavit and has taken a categorical stand that the

written screening test was held by it only for the purpose of short listing

the candidates to be called for interview to fill up the 10 vacant posts of

Lab Assistant Grade-I. The respondent has also taken a stand that the

decision to hold written screening test was taken because it had received

a large number of applications for the said post. As per the case of the

respondent, the marks scored by the candidates in the written screening

test were not taken into account by the Selection Committee while

selecting the candidates finally for appointment to the post of Lab

Assistant Grade-I. As per the respondent, the petitioner has no right to be

appointed because he could not qualify the viva voce examination held

on 15th February, 2007. The respondent has further averred in its

counter affidavit that the due procedure was followed by the respondent

in selecting the candidates for their appointment to the post of Lab

Assistant Grade-I and it is stated that the selection was made on the basis

of an assessment made by the Selection Committee based upon the

performance of the candidates at the time of interview, after approval of

the competent authority. The respondent has also pleaded that all the 10

selected candidates have already joined the service of the respondent

pursuant to appointment letters issued to them. As per the respondent,

the petitioner has no locus to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court as

his legal right has not been infringed. The respondent has prayed for the

dismissal of this writ petition.

7 The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit of

the respondent. The petitioner has not denied that all the 10 candidates

selected by the respondent for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I have

joined the service of the respondent. The petitioner has denied in his

rejoinder that the written test was meant only for screening purposes.

According to the petitioner, the written test was conducted for finding out

the merit of the competing candidates. The petitioner has alleged that

since he had scored overall rank No.1 in the written examination, his non

selection in the final select list establishes his point that the selection

made by the respondent was based on manipulation and nepotism.

According to the petitioner, the criteria adopted by the Selection

Committee for selection was consideration of the following:-

1) Educational qualification of the candidate

2) Experience possessed by the candidate

3) Performance in the written test by the candidates and

4) The suitability of the candidates for the posts.

8 According to the petitioner, he is the most meritorious

candidate as per the criteria mentioned above for the selection amongst

all the 10 candidates who were finally selected. The petitioner has stated

that he holds a motor mechanic certificate from Industrial Training

Institute, Sonepat, wherein he scored 457 marks out of a total 650 marks

i.e., 73% in the year 1991, which was followed by apprenticeship of one

year as Motor Mechanic with Haryana Roadways. The petitioner is stated

to has worked as motor mechanic with Birla Corporation Ltd. from 07 th

February, 1989 to 02nd February, 2006. He has relied upon a letter dated

08th August, 2007 purported to be written by Sh. J.M. Kalra, In-charge,

Automobile Section IGIT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and relying upon the same

he has tried to make out a case that the respondent urgently require a

motor mechanic having practical experience and according to him he

being the most suitable person fit for the said post should have been

selected by the respondent while making selection to the post of Lab

Assistant Grade-I.

9 This court has heard Mr. M.S. Dahiya, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. G.D. Goel who

appeared on behalf of the respondent. This court has also gone through

the original selection record pertaining to selection of Lab Assistant

Grade-I by the respondent.

10 The plank of arguments of Mr. Dahiya, appearing on behalf of

the petitioner was that since the petitioner had scored highest marks in

the written screening test, the Selection Committee could not have

ignored him while recommending the candidates for their appointment

vide its minutes dated 15th February, 2007. The argument of Mr. Dahiya

was that due weightage should have been given by the respondent to the

marks scored by the candidates in the written screening test. According

to him the final seniority list should have been drawn after taking into

consideration the total marks obtained by a candidate in the written

examination and the interview. Mr. Dahiya had further argued that the

selection made by the Selection Committee is vitiated by mala fides,

favoritism and nepotism and has violated the fundamental right of the

petitioner for a fair and reasonable consideration by the respondent for

his appointment.

11 Per contra Mr. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent had referred to the original record of the selection and

vehemently argued that since large number of applications were received

by the respondent for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I, it was decided to

hold a written screening test for short listing the candidates to be called

for interview for filling up 10 vacant posts of Lab Assistant Grade-I.

Mr. Goel had further argued that not only in the case of Lab Assistant

Grade-I, but in case of Technical Assistant as well the decision was taken

by the respondent for holding a written screening test because in that

category also large number of applications were received to fill up a

limited number of vacancies. According to Mr. Goel, all those candidates

who were short listed in the written screening test for being considered

for selection by the Selection Committee were treated at par and the

selection was made on the basis of performance of the candidates before

the Selection Committee. Mr. Goel had submitted that need for holding

the written screening test arose because of large number of applications

received by the respondent so that the candidates could be short listed

for their interview by the Selection Committee approximately in the ratio

of 1:3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had

also argued that the petitioner is even otherwise estopped from

challenging the selection process after he has participated in the said

selection process and has failed. Mr. Goel has prayed for the dismissal of

this writ petition.

12 The only short question that arises for consideration in this

writ petition is whether the respondent was justified in not giving any

weightage to the marks scored by the candidates in the written screening

test while considering their performance at the time of interview. The

question also arises whether the written test was held by the respondent

only for screening and short listing the candidates or whether the written

test was held by it for assessing and evaluating the related merit of the

candidates who took the said test. A perusal of the minutes of the

Selection Committee dated 15th February, 2007 at page-26 of the paper

book shows that the Selection Committee has taken into account the

educational qualifications, experience possessed by the candidates and

their respective performance in the written test as well as suitability

adjudged at the time of interviews while recommending the candidates

for appointment. Admittedly, no specific marks were allocated by the

respondent for the purpose of interview. The selection seems to have

been based on the basis of performance of the candidates at the time of

interview treating all the 35 candidates who appeared for interview at

par. A scanning to the record of the respondent relating to selection of

10 candidates for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I shows

that the respondent had called 38 candidates who were short listed

strictly in the order of merit and once they were called for interview, they

all were treated at par.

13 Though the petitioner has made allegations of mala fide,

favoritism and nepotism against the respondent in the matter of selection

of candidates for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I, but his said

allegations are not backed by any material much less sufficient material.

14 In "Purushottam Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Ors." reported as (2006) 9 SCC, 458, it was held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as under:

"23. It is well settled that whenever allegations as to mala fides have been levelled, sufficient particulars and cogent materials making out prima facie case must be set out in the pleadings. Vague allegation or bald assertion that the action taken was mala fide and malicious is not enough. In the absence of material particulars, the Court is not expected to make 'fishing' inquiry into the matter. It is equally well established and needs no authority that the burden of proving mala fides is on the person making the allegations and such burden is 'very heavy'. Malice cannot be inferred or assumed. It has to be remembered that such a charge can easily be 'made than made out' and hence it is necessary for the Courts to examine it with extreme care, caution and circumspection. It has been rightly described as 'the last refuge of a losing litigant'"

15 In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

on the point of mala fide, the allegation of favoritism and nepotism made

by the petitioner against the respondent does not merit any consideration

as the said allegation is vague and not supported by any material much

less cogent material.

16 The object of any process of selection for entry into a public

service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job,

avoiding patronage and favoritism. Selection based on merit, tested

impartially and objectively is the essential foundation of any useful and

efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to

be expected almost universally as the gateway to public services.

17 The Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the

importance of oral interviews in its judgment in "K.H. Siraj v. High

Court of Kerala", (2006) 6 SCC 395, wherein it was held as under:

"54. In our opinion, the interview is the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While the written examination will testify the candidate's academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership, etc. which are also essential for a judicial officer."

18 In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (Supra), this court does not find any

thing wrong in the procedure adopted by the respondent to select the

candidates for the post of Lab Assistant Grade-I on the basis of their

performance at the time of interview. In order to satisfy itself, this court

has also seen the record of the respondent relating to selection of

candidates for the post of Technical Assistant because in that case also

the respondent had received large number of applications and had

conducted written screening test as it was conducted in the case of Lab

Assistant Grade-I. On seeing the record relating to selection of

candidates for the post of Technical Assistant, this court has found that

the respondent has adopted the similar procedure of adjudging the

performance of the candidates on the basis of viva voce / interview. This

shows complete transparency in the office of the respondent in the

selection process adopted by them.

19 Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in the selection

process and had appeared for viva voce / interview before the Selection

Committee on 15th February, 2007 and in the opinion of this court the

petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process in which

he has participated and has failed. Reference in this regard is made to a

Division Bench Judgment of this court in "R.P. Bhasin & Ors. v. D.K.

Tyagi & Ors." reported as 88(2000) DLT 643.

20 Thus, looking from any angle this court does not find any

merit in the challenge to the selection process made by the petitioner in

this writ petition. It may be noted that the petitioner has not prayed for

quashing the entire selection process or upsetting the appointment of the

candidates who have also joined the institute of the respondent on the

post of Lab Assistant Grade-I. The 10 candidates who were selected and

have joined the respondent are not even parties in the present petition.

In case the challenge made by the petitioner in this writ petition is

accepted, then it would result in upsetting the appointment of duly

selected candidates without affording an opportunity of hearing to them.

This is not permissible in law. Therefore, the Mandamus as prayed for by

the petitioner for his appointment cannot be issued.

21 Before parting with this judgment, this court would like to

note that any procedure for selection of candidates adopted by the

respondent should not only be transparent but it should look to be

transparent to all those who are concerned with the said process. In case

the respondent would have clarified in its instructions that no weightage

was to be given to the marks scored by the candidates in the written

screening test, probably the controversy raised in the present writ

petition would not have arisen. The respondent, is therefore, directed to

amend their recruitment rules suitably so as to make the selection

process more transparent by providing the exact criteria that they seek to

adopt at the time of selection.

21 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of

the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

July 14, 2008                                     S.N.AGGARWAL
'nks'                                                [JUDGE]