Delhi High Court
Smt. Dipti Srivastava vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 20 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5958/2002
% 20th May, 2015
SMT. DIPTI SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through None
versus
THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rohit K.Aggarwal with Ms.Rekha
Dwivedi, Advocates.
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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner, in effect, seeks her appointment and promotion to the
post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess (redesignated as Assistant Manager,
Inflight Services) by questioning the selection process initiated by the
employer/respondent nos. 1 to 5 in terms of the selection process of the year
2002 - notice dated 05.8.2002. The petitioner was not selected by the
Selection Committee, and instead respondent nos.6 to 22 were selected and
whose appointments are also questioned in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.5958/2002 Page 1 of 5
2. In law, a person has only a right to be considered for promotion. As
per the extant recruitment and promotion rules of the employer, promotion is
not automatic and it is subject to marks to be achieved by the candidate from
the maximum marks of 60 marks for annual performance appraisals and 40
marks for the interview. 50 posts were to be filled up by promotion and for
these 50 vacancies of promotion quota, a total of 110 candidates appeared
for the interview.
3. The petitioner claims that she was senior and better qualified, and
therefore she had to be appointed. Petitioner also makes certain allegations
against the 17 candidates who have been appointed, and which are stated in
para 9 of the grounds of the writ petition.
4. The law with respect to power of the court to interfere with the
decision taken by the selection committee is now well settled. The law with
respect to entitlement of interference by the court is stated by the Supreme
Court in its judgment in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others
Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others (1990) 1 SCC 305 wherein the Supreme
Court has categorically held that courts do not sit as an appellate court over
the decisions of the selection committee because it is the selection
committee which scrutinizes the relevant merits of the candidates and
decides whether a candidate is fit or not to be appointed to a particular post.
W.P.(C) No.5958/2002 Page 2 of 5
It has been further observed in this judgment that a court has no expertise to
substitute the expertise of the selection committee in scrutinizing and
appointing candidates. Relevant observations in this judgment are contained
in para 12 of this judgment and which para 12 reads as under:-
"12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court
has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their
appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has
also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the
Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative
merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the
function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the
Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has
to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which
has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise.
The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only
on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity
in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the
selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not
disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the
Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The
Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after
going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal
over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of
the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the
Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
5. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court recently in the judgment in the case of B.C. Mylarappa Alias Dr.
Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 306.
In fact, the selection committee need not give reasons unless they are bound
by the rules and circulars to do so, and this has been held by the Supreme
W.P.(C) No.5958/2002 Page 3 of 5
Court in the judgement in the case of National Institute of Mental Health
and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Others 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 481. The relevant para 7 of this judgment reads as under:-
"7. ... In the first place, it must be noted that the function of
the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory.
It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in
error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have
given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against
the other candidate. The selection has been made by the
assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined
in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the
required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to
our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record
reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the
selection made without recording reasons cannot be found
fault with. The High Court in support of its reasoning has,
however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of
India v. Mohan Lai Capoor: (1973) 2 SCC 836. That
decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation
5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection
Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior
member in the State Civil service. The decision in Capoor
case (supra) was rendered on 26 September, 1973. In June,
1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement
of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of
the State Civil services. The Capoor case (supra) cannot,
therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition
that there should be reason formulation for administrative
decision. Administrative authority is under no legal
obligation to record reasons in support of its decision.
Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require
an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an
examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection
of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This
principle has been stated by this Court in R. S. Dass v. Union
of India: 1986 Supp SCC 617 in which Capoor case (supra)
was also distinguished."
W.P.(C) No.5958/2002 Page 4 of 5
6. The petitioner participated in the selection process, but was not
successful. This Court therefore cannot substitute its views for the views of
the Selection Committee which has selected the respondent nos. 6 to 22, and
has not selected the petitioner. It is noted that for the 50 vacancies, 110
candidates had appeared for the interview and respondent nos. 6 to 22 were
selected by the Selection Committee.
7. In view of the above, the present case is a clear case of an
unsuccessful candidate wanting to question the selection process, and which
is not permissible.
8. Dismissed.
MAY 20, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
