Sh. Rajaprakash P. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5184 Del

*            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.

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

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