Delhi High Court
Veterinary Council Of India vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors. on 28 July, 2015
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : July 28, 2015
+ LPA 705/2013
SANJAY ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate
versus
RAMESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Avadh Kaushik, Adv. for
R-1
Mr.Kailash Vasdev,
Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Shreyans Singhvi Ms.Ekta
Mehta, Advocates for R-2
Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
Advocate for R-3.
LPA 720/2013
VETERINARY COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Kailash Vasdev,
Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Shreyans Singhvi Ms.Ekta
Mehta, Advocates
versus
RAMESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Avadh Kaushik, Advocate
for R-1.
Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
Advocate for R-2.
Mr.M.K.Singh, Adv. for R-3
LPA 705/2013 & LPA 720/2013 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Ramesh Kumar, the respondent No.1 in the two appeals, was the writ
petitioner of WP(C) 5865/2012. Union of India and the Veterinary Council
of India were impleaded as respondents No.1 and 2 in the writ petition.
Sanjay, the appellant of LPA No.705/2013 was impleaded as respondent
No.3.
2. Issue related to respondent No.3 being appointed as a Peon with the
Veterinary Council of India.
3. Case of Ramesh Kumar pleaded in the writ petition was that neither
the advertisement nor the applicable service rules permitted any weightage
of marks to be given for experience while selecting the eligible candidates
as a Peon by the Veterinary Council of India. As per him, the applicable
advertisement simply stipulated the essential qualification to be a 10 th pass
from a recognized Board.
4. As per the Veterinary Council of India the advertisement in question
did indicate that there would be some weightage to professional
qualifications as also experience, and for which the Veterinary Council of
India relied upon point No.4 in the advertisement which reads as under:-
"4. Candidate should attach passport size photograph and
attested copies of certificates in support of
Educational/Professional Qualification/Experience."
5. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is, an expression of
wonder, as to what could be an experience for having worked as Peon (refer
para 4 of the impugned decision).
6. The learned Single Judge has held that since the advertisement nor
any rule permitted any weightage to be given for experience, the
appointment of Sanjay as a Peon was vitiated and hence the appointment
was struck down. Expressing shock at what the Management of the
Veterinary Council did, the learned Single Judge has directed an inquiry to
be held regarding Sanjay's appointment and report to be filed in Court in
compliance.
7. The counter affidavit filed by Veterinary Council of India before the
learned Single Judge clearly pleaded that being a statutory body under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India,
appointments were being made on the basis of a recommendation of a
Selection Committee to the various posts under the Council and in
conformity with the past practice in the instant case selection criteria
adopted was : (i) 80% weightage to the marks obtained in the
written/screening test; (ii) 5% weightage for work experience in a public
sector; and (iii) 15% weightage to an interview.
8. It is pleaded that whereas 80% weightage for the written test resulted
in Sanjay obtaining 63.20 marks, 8 marks at the interview and Nil for past
experience, Ramesh Kumar obtained 56.60 marks at the written test, 14 at
the interview and 5 for working experience in Government sector . The
overall marks obtained by Sanjay being more he was given the employment.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we agree with the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned
Single Judge has misapplied the law.
10. The settled legal position is that a selection committee is free to adopt
a selection procedure and prescribed criteria which is fair and reasonable;
but before commencing the selection process, for the reason it inspires
confidence and rules out possibility of favouritism by changing the rules of
the game once the selection process starts.
11. We may only cite one such decision. It is reported as (2008) 7 SCC
11 Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi. In para 15 it was observed as
under:-
"There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules
regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum
marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if
minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the
commencement of selection process, the authority concerned,
cannot either during the selection process or after the selection
process add an additional requirement/qualification that the
candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview.
Therefore, this Curt is of the opinion that prescription of
minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was
illegal."
12. The decision of the Supreme Court brings out that it is permissible to
regulate the selection process by rules, and in the absence of rules by the
Selection Committee prescribing the selection criteria before commencing
the selection process.
13. Under the circumstances it makes no difference whether the
advertisement did nor did not indicate the selection criteria. It is irrelevant
whether or not rules framed by the Council governed the field.
14. The two appeals are accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and
order dated August 27, 2013 is set aside. WP(C) 5865/2012 filed by
Ramesh Kumar, the first respondent in both appeals is dismissed.
15. Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout.
CM No.15003/2013 in LPA No.705/2013
CM No.15451/2013 in LPA No.720/2013
Dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 28, 2015
skb
