Delhi High Court
Charumati S. Khandare vs National School Of Drama & Ors. on 11 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5482/2013 & CM 12225/2013(Stay)
% 11th September, 2013
CHARUMATI S. KHANDARE ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
NATIONAL SCHOOL OF DRAMA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Baldev Malik and Mr. Arjun
Malik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging two
selection processes. First selection process was pursuant to the
advertisement dated 1.7.2012 for appointment of three artists. The second
selection process is in terms of the advertisement dated 13.4.2013 for one
artist and which process is still not complete. Appointments as per the first
advertisement of three artists, and for one artist as per the second
advertisement has to take place in the Theatre in Education Company (T.I.E
Company), a unit of respondent no.1-National School of Drama.
2. So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the recruitment process
initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 1.7.2012, and which stands
concluded in terms of the Selection Committee Meeting held on
25/26/27.7.2012, the writ petition, in my opinion is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition has been filed on
18.7.2013 i.e well after the conclusion of the Selection Committee Meeting
in July, 2012, and for which, appointments of three artists have already been
made in August, 2012 even as per the statement of the petitioner made
before me. In April, 2013 after vested rights have accrued in favour of the
three selected persons, and who were selected out of 40 persons, these rights
cannot be disturbed at this late stage by setting aside their appointments.
3. Even assuming that the writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches, then, so far as appointments of three artists
made in T.I.E Company pursuant to the Selection Committee Meeting on
25/26/27.7.2012, there is no substance in any of the two arguments which
have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to contend that she was
wrongly not selected.
4. The first contention of the petitioner is that selection of the first two
persons (out of the three selected) namely Mr. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms.
Sheel as artists in T.I.E Company is bad because these persons did not have
the requisite experience as stated in the advertisement dated 1.7.2012. In
order to examine this argument, let us see what was the requirement in
advertisement and what are the qualifications of Mr. Kanhaya Lal Rathore
and Ms. Sheel. Following are the essential qualifications which were
required in terms of the advertisement.
"Essential Qualification
1. Graduate of National School of Drama or a recognized Theatre
Training Institute or a degree/diploma in education/child
development/psychology from a recognized Institution or long
experience of acting, designing, composing music, writing and
teaching or working with children in threatre.
2. Ability to relate to children."
5. The relevant qualifications of Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel
are as under and which are so stated in the writ petition:-
Sh. Kanhaya G- 01-04-87 *B.A *Associated with General NA Regular
Lal Rathore 206/5,Mohan T.I.E.co. NSD. Artist
Baba Nagar, *Two year
Badarpur, diploma in *Done Summer
New Delhi- acting from Theatre Workshop
110044. Shri Ram and Sunday club.
Centre.
*Worked as Theatre
*1 year short factulty in many
time film Public & govt.
making schools and NGO.
course.
*Worked in TV
*Short ads/short
course in films/documentaries
puppet and
mask making
Ms. Sheel 86, Hastsal 02-08-85 *Graduate. *Worked with well SC NA Regular
Village, Jatto known directors of Artist
Wala *Done two NSD& SRC.
Mohala, year diploma
Uttam Nagar, from SRC *Done summer
New Delhi- theatre Workshop
110059 and Sunday Club.
*Worked as an
asstt. In summer
theatre workshop
with T.I.E. Co.,
NSD for many
years.
* Worked as an
artist of SRC
repertory for 1 year.
*Telefilms with
doordarshan.
*Haryanvi movie
Dhakad Chhora.
*Acted in plays like
tom Swayer, Gotya
and the boss, The
Barrel Laugh Well
of Tear.
*Worked as assitt.
CWG 2010.
*Working as a
freelancer and with
"Khilona Theatre
Group".
*Done workshop
from T.I.E.Co.,
NSD 2001.
* Done Sunday
Club Part 1&2-
2001-2003.
6. In my opinion, when we compare the requirements as stated in the
advertisement of having experience in acting, designing, composing music,
writing and teaching or working with students in theatre, it cannot be said
that Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel did not have requisite
qualifications. The requisite qualifications are reproduced above and it
cannot be said that the experiences as stated of Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and
Ms. Sheel are not in terms of the essential qualifications required in the
advertisement. I may state that the requirement of an artist and experience
of such an artist is essentially subjective and objective as per the assessment
of the members of the Selection Committee. It is subjective because the job
of an artist is not a job of mathematician which can be logically examined.
An artist performs a job which is a fine art, and therefore, the type of
experience and the qualifications in such aspects are best left to be decided
as per the judgment of the Selection Committee, and which in this case was
comprised of as many as 8 persons. Even if we remove the respondent no.2
namely Mr. Abdul Latif Khatana from the panel, thereafter there were 7
other persons who selected the 3 artists out of 40 persons who appeared for
the interview and the petitioner was one of the 40 persons. This Court
would not like to substitute its opinion for that of a Selection Committee in a
case where the selection has to be of an artist in a drama company. The first
argument therefore urged on behalf of the petitioner does not have merit and
is rejected accordingly.
7. The second argument which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner
is that the Selection Committee was biased against the petitioner because the
Selection Committee comprised of the respondent no.2 who had grievance
against the petitioner because of the principled stand taken by the petitioner
and complaint made by her against the respondent no.2. Without in any
manner commenting upon the validity or otherwise of the issues which the
petitioner has against the respondent no.2, it may be stated that there were 7
other members in the Selection Committee and therefore, I do not think that
only one person namely respondent no.2 (who was only a member and not
the chairman) can have such effect so as to unsettle the views of as many as
7 other Selection Committee members.
8. In fact, there is additional reason as to why respondent no.2‟s
presence in the Selection Committee cannot entitle the petitioner to quash
the entire selection process because after selecting 3 persons as artists, a
waiting list of 7 other persons was drawn up. Petitioner‟s name in fact does
not even appear in the list of 7 persons in the waiting list. I do not think that
in a case such as the present where petitioner is not even in the waiting list
of 7 candidates, she can seek cancellation of the entire selection process
merely because respondent no.2 was a member of the Selection Committee.
Also, as already stated above, besides the 3 successful candidates, and the
petitioner, there were 36 persons who appeared in the interview and who
were not selected. There is no list before me that where the petitioner stands
with respect to those 36 persons inasmuch as petitioner does not even appear
in the waiting list of 7 persons. I therefore do not think that in a case such as
the present, petitioner can claim that she was entitled to be selected because
she was better than the persons who were selected or the 7 persons out of the
36 persons who were put in the waiting list. Who is better and who is not, is
surely not for the petitioner to decide, but was of the Selection Committee,
and which Selection Committee comprised of 7 other persons besides the
respondent no.2. Therefore, looking at issue from this point of view also,
petitioner cannot seek cancellation of the selection process, much less she
can claim entitlement of her being appointed to the post of an artist.
9. So far as the challenge to recruitment initiated by the advertisement
dated 13.4.2013 is concerned, two points have been urged on behalf of the
petitioner. First point is that for the appointment to the post of artist, the
respondent no.1 has two separate recruitment rules, and which cannot be
inasmuch as petitioner contends that respondent no.1 cannot pick and choose
any rule at its convenience out of two recruitment rules. The second
argument which is urged is that respondent no.2 should not be a part of the
Selection Committee for selecting of one artist, the post of which has been
advertised vide advertisement dated 13.4.2013.
10. So far as the first argument is concerned, I have taken note of the
statement made on behalf of respondent no.1 that there are two separate
wings or units performing different functions in the respondent no.1/
National School of Drama and thus there are separate recruitment rules for
the separate wings/units having different roles/functions and different works
require employees with separate/different qualifications although the post of
artist is the same. One wing is the Theatre in Education Company (T.I.E.
company) and other is Repertory Company and thus both wings performing
different functions in the respondent no.1, have therefore separate
recruitment rules for employing of artist in the separate wings. Petitioner has
filed the two recruitment rules from pages 30 to 33 of the petition, and the
said two recruitment rules, one at pages 30 and 31 and second is at pages 32
and 33, themselves show that whereas the first recruitment rule at page 30-
31 is for the T.I.E Company, the second recruitment rule from pages 32-33
is for „A Grade‟ group i.e different than T.I.E company wing/unit.
Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner is justified in contending that
there are two different recruitment rules for the same post, because the
separate recruitment rules are for the separate wings of the respondent no.1
and which wings perform separate functions. There is therefore nothing
illegal in treating unequal persons unequally. Petitioner could have been
successful in contending discrimination for the T.I.E company only when
artists are being appointed therein as per two separate recruitment rules of
the T.I.E. company, but that is not the factual position. Therefore, I reject
the contention on behalf of the petitioner that recruitment of artists are
taking place as per the two separate recruitment rules.
11. That leaves us with the argument that respondent no.2 should not be
part of the Selection Committee which will make the recommendation for
selecting of one artist whose post has been advertised as per the
advertisement dated 13.4.2013. To this aspect, I need not dwell in any detail
because counsel for respondent no.1 has been more than fair in agreeing that
whenever the case of the petitioner comes up in the interview before the
Selection Committee, the respondent no.2 will not be a part of the Selection
Committee or if he is part of the Selection Committee he will recuse himself
so far as the interview process of the petitioner is concerned by not being a
member of the Selection Committee for the petitioner‟s consideration.
12. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
13. At this stage after dictating of the judgment, I must mention that most
unfortunately both the petitioner and her counsel have made unfortunate
remarks that there is injustice and they do not expect anything else from the
Court. This is a fit case for issuing contempt against both petitioner as well
as her counsel, however, unfortunately Courts are expected to have larger
than usual heart and avoid any response to a passionate situation. It is only
for this reason that I am not issuing contempt proceedings but I put on
judicial record that conduct of both the petitioner and her counsel is to be
highly deprecated.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
