Delhi High Court
Dr. Amiya Bhushan Sharma vs Indira Gandhi National Open ... on 20 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4588/2002
% 20th May, 2015
DR. AMIYA BHUSHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the petitioner. No one appeared for the
petitioner even on 6.5.2015 when the matter was adjourned in the interest of
justice.
2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner seeks appointment by promotion to the post of Professor
under the Career Advancement Scheme of the respondent no.1/University
w.e.f 27.7.1998. Effectively the petitioner questions the selection process to
WP(C) 4588/2002 Page 1 of 6
the post of Professor conducted on 9.10.2001 whereby the Selection
Committee did not find the petitioner fit to be appointed as a Professor and
put another candidate at no.1 in the panel for appointment. Petitioner was
placed at no.2 and hence denied promotion to the post of Professor.
3. In the writ petition petitioner states that he was better qualified
and that respondent no.2 had malice and malafides against the petitioner and
therefore petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Professor.
Petitioner has in the writ petition given his account of the interview which
was conducted by the Selection Committee and has stated that the Selection
Committee was biased.
4. Respondent no.1/University has filed the counter affidavit and
has denied the contentions raised by the petitioner. It has been denied that
the Selection Committee meeting held on 9.10.2001 was rigged. The
contentions of the petitioner are challenged as being baseless and ill
conceived. In the counter affidavit, respondent no.1/University states that
the Selection Committee's composition and procedure has been duly
followed in terms of the University Grants Commission's letter of October,
1999. It is categorically stated that the respondent no.1/University has
WP(C) 4588/2002 Page 2 of 6
followed the procedure set out in the Ordinance while conducting the
interview to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme.
5. The law with respect to entitlement of interference by the court
to a selection made by a selection committee 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 taken by 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.
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
WP(C) 4588/2002 Page 3 of 6
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."
6. 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 Court 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
WP(C) 4588/2002 Page 4 of 6
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."
7. Petitioner only had a right to be considered and petitioner was
considered but the Selection Committee instead found someone else entitled
to promotion to the post of Professor. Since this Court cannot substitute its
decision for that of the selection committee, petitioner cannot be granted
appointment to the post of Professor as claimed by him.
WP(C) 4588/2002 Page 5 of 6
8. Merely because petitioner makes self-serving averments of
malice and bias against the Selection Committee members including the
respondent no.2 does not mean that the Court has to accept the same as
correct. Serious allegations of malafides and malice, unless substantiated to
the satisfaction of the court, cannot be accepted by the court. These
contentions of the petitioner are therefore rejected.
9. Dismissed.
MAY 20, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
