Delhi High Court
Kalpana Mehdiratta vs Air Force Bal Bharati School & Ors. on 10 February, 2016
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on : January 20, 2016
% Judgment Delivered on : February 10, 2016
+ LPA 363/2015
KALPANA MEHDIRATTA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Tinu Bajwa,
Mr.Sameer Sharma, Mr.Padma K.
and Mr.Parveen Mehndiratta,
Advocates
versus
AIR FORCE BAL BHARATI SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Garima Sachdeva
and Ms.Shruti Munjal, Advocates for
R-1 & R-2
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with
Mr.Shubhanshu Gupta, Advocate for
R-3
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The controversy involved in the above captioned intra-court appeal
relates to the appointment to the post of Vice-Principal in Air Force Bal
Bharati School (hereinafter referred to as the „School‟), a school recognized
by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi as per the
provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed
thereunder.
2. The appellant was appointed to the post of TGT (English) on July 13,
1983 in the school and earned promotion to the post of PGT (English) on
April 02, 1991. The respondent No.4 was (directly) appointed to the post of
PGT (Commerce) on July 23, 1990. Meaning thereby, that respondent No.4
was senior to the appellant (on the post of PGT) by a period of about nine
months.
3. In the year 2013 a vacancy arose to the post of Vice-Principal in the
school, the Recruitment Rule of which post for those working in the
Government Aided School and Recognized School in the Union Territory of
Delhi prescribes as under:-
Name of Scale of pay Whether Age limit for Educational
the post 2 Selection 4 Qualifications
Selection
Vice `650-30- Selection a. Not a. Master‟s degree
Principal 710-35-870 exceeding 45 with atleast second
EB-35-800 years relaxable division from a
40-1580- by 5 years for recognized
EB-40-1200 candidate university or
belonging to equivalent.
scheduled Condition of
Caste second division
scheduled relaxable in case of
Tribes candidates
belonging to the
b. Relaxable to same school and
the candidates also in case of
belonging to scheduled castes
the same and scheduled
school Tribes.
b. Degree in
Teaching education
from a recognized
university or
equivalent
c. 10 years
experience of
teaching as TGT or
five year
experience of
teaching as PT,
PGT.
i) experience in
administrative
charge of 5
recognized High/Sr.
Sec
School/intermediate
college
ii) Doctorate
Degree
iii) M. Ed from a
recogd. University.
Whether age Period of Method In case of rectt. By If a Selection
and Probation of rectt. promotion/deputati Committee
educational on/transfer/grades exists what is
Qualifications 7 8 from which it composition
prescribed for promotion/deputati
direct on/transfer to be 10
recruitment made
will apply in
promotion
i) Age No One year By i) Promotion out of The Selection
ii) promoti PGT/HM of the Committee
Qualification on same School with prescribed
except as failing atleast 5 years under the
appointed in which experience as Education Act
college by PGT/HM and Rules
direct
recruitm ii) TGT with 10
ent years experience as
TGT in case of ST.
Schools.
4. The same Recruitment Rules being applicable to a recognized private
school, the respondent No.1 school commenced the process of appointment
by promotion to the post Vice-Principal in its school.
5. Nine teachers working as PGT which included the appellant and
respondent No.4 applied.
6. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) interviewed the nine
candidates on November 11, 2013 and recommended the name of
respondent No.4 to be appointed as the Vice-Principal.
7. The appellant filed a writ petition assailing the recommendation made
by the DPC, and by which time respondent No.4 had been appointed as the
Vice Principal. Succinctly put she attacked the promotion of respondent
No.4 on the following grounds:-
a) The post of Vice-Principal is a „selection‟ post, meaning thereby, the
post has to be filled up by a comparative assessment on merit of all eligible
candidates and not on the basis of continuous length of service of
candidates. She alleged that the DPC had given a go-by to the merit of
candidates and had selected respondent No.4 purportedly because said
respondent was senior to the appellant by about 9 months.
b) That she was more meritorious in view of the data provided by her in
a comparative chart annexed by her to the writ petition which evinced she
having better ACR grading for the last ten years.
c) Respondent No.4 had been absent from service which was not
regularized and this would mean that she would be having a break in service
and thereby would become junior to the appellant.
8. In the counter affidavit the respondent No.1 justified appointing
respondent No.4 to the post of Vice-Principal by denying that the appellant
was far meritorious than respondent No.4 or that there was any break-in-
service of respondent No.4. As per respondent No.1 the DPC considered
overall grading, performance and length of service (seniority) of all
candidates.
9. It would therefore be important as also necessary for us to reproduce
the minutes of the meeting of the DPC held on November 11, 2003, relevant
portion whereof reads as under:-
"MINUTES OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
COMMITTEE MEETING OF AIR FORCE BAL
BHARARTI SCHOOL, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI.03
HELD ON 11 NOV 2013 AT 1130 HOURS IN THE
SCHOOL PREMISES
1. The Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting for
the post of Vice Principal of Air Force Bal Bharati School
was held on 11 Nov 2013 at 1130 hrs in the school premises
(Principal‟s office).
2. The following were present:
Air Cmde HN Bhagwat VM : Chairman
Chairman, Managing Committee
Wg Cdr A Monga,
Executive Director, AFBBS : Member
Mr. Anand Swaroop,
Principal, AFBBS : Member
PROCEEDINGS:
3. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee
was convened on 11 Nov 2013 at 1130 hrs in order to
discuss/consider the eligible staff members for the post of
Vice Principal on account of superannuation of Mrs. Annu
Mathur on 30 Nov 2013.
4. At the out-set the Principal welcomed Air Cmde HN
Bhagwat VM, Chairman, Managing Committee and Wg Cdr
A Monga, Executive Director, AFBBS and stated that
eligibility of individual candidate under the consideration of
DPC has been examined. He further stated that there is no
departmental inquiry against any candidate presently under
consideration of DPC. The following candidates were
interviewed by the panel:-
S. Name Qualification S. Name Qualification
No No
1. Mr. Yogesh B Sc (PCM) 6. Mr.DK B Sc, M Sc
Arora AMIETE (BE) Chaudhary (Maths)
PGT Engg PGT Maths B Ed
Drawing
2. Mrs. Sunita B Com (H) 7. Mr. G S B Sc, M Sc
Gupta M Com & B Ed Patwal (Phy) B Ed
(Respondent PGT Physics
No.4)
PGT
Commerce
3. Mrs. K B A (H), M A 8. Mr. JR BFA&
Mehdiratta (Eng) & B Ed Chaudhari MVA
(Appellant) PGT Fine
Arts
4. Mrs. Mani B A, M A (Eng) 9. Mrs. Rupa B A, M A
Shankara MA (His), B Ed Chatterji (Eng), B Ed
PGT History PGT English
5. Mr. E T B A, M A (Eng)
Mani B Ed., M Ed
PGT
English
7. The DPC rules in conformity with para 6 Rule 96 of
DSEAR 1973:
(a) The candidate should have completed at least 5 years of
school services as a regular employee in AFBBS.
(b) Perusal of Annual Confidential Reports for five preceding
years. The Committee also deliberated on the broad guidelines as
are laid down to regulate the assessment of suitability of the
candidate "While merit has to be recognized and rewarded,
advancement in an officers career should not be regarded as a
matter of course, but should be earned by dint of hard work, good
conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual
confidential reports and based on strict and rigorous selection
process". The Committee has also taken note of the fact that
average performance should be regarded as routine and
undistinguished. The annual reports of candidates needs to be
examined and perused in totality which means that overall
grading alone should not be the guiding factor. Cognizance also
must be taken of with regard to entries made in the Annual
Confidential Reports.
(i) The mode of promotion shall be „selection‟.
(ii) The benchmark for promotion, as it now, shall continue to
be „Good‟.
(e) Seniority be given due weightage.
8. The deliberation on each candidate were conducted
covering the following points/aspects:-
(a) Annual Confidential Reports for five preceding years.
(b) Personality
(c) Extra-Curricular activities/contribution
(d) Residual Service
(e) Popularity amongst the staff
(f) Attitude/Behavior towards fellow employees.
9. All the nine candidates who had submitted their consent,
appeared for the interview before the DPC. The Committee after
pursuing their ACRs, deliberated the broad guidelines laid down
to regulate the assessment and the suitability of the candidate for
Departmental promotion. After due deliberation it was
unanimously decided by the Committee to promote Mrs Sunita
Gupta, PGT (Commerce) for the post of Vice Principal. The
consolidated Assessment Sheet is annexed as Annexure „A‟.
10. The Consolidated Assessment Sheet, referred to in the minutes of the
meeting of the DPC reads as under:-
S. Name Date of Date Experie Date of Qualifi- Div Annual Rem
No. of the Birth of nce in superannu cation Confiden- arks
Staff & Appt AFBBS ation tial 150
Designa Report
-tion
1. Mr.Yog 25 Oct Aug 18 year 31 Oct 14 B Sc III 2008-09 - 55
esh 1954 1977- 06 (PCM) 2009-10 -
Arora 95 months (1976) 2010-11 -
PGT AMIET 2011-12 -
Engg E (BE) 2012-13 -
Drawin (1982)
g
2. Mrs. 16 Sep 23 23 years 30 Sep 25 B Com II2008-09 - 115
Sunita 1965 July (H) (54
Good
Gupta 90 (1986) %)2009-10 -
(Respo M Com IIVG
ndent (1988) (55
2010-11 -
No.4) B Ed %)Good
PGT (1989) I 2011-12 -
Comm (53
VG
erce %)2012-13 -
VG
3. Mrs. K. 04 Oct 13 Jul 08 yrs 31 Oct 19 B A (H) III 2008-09 - 111
Mehdir 1959 83 22 yrs (1979) (47 Good
atta (TGT) M A %) 2009-10 -
(Appell 02 (Eng) II OS
ant) Apr (1981) ("B" 2010-11 -
PGT 91 B Ed ) VG
Eng (PGT) (1982) I 2011-12 -
(64 Good
%) 2012-13 -
VG
4. Mrs. 18 Jun 03 18 yrs 30 Jun 18 BA II 2008-09 - 106
Mani 1958 July (1976) (50 Good
Shankar 95 MA %) 2009-10 -
a (PGT) (Eng) I Good
PGT (1978) (61 2010-11 -
History M A %) Good
(Histor I 2011-12 -
y) (62 Good
(1980) %) 2012-13 -
B Ed VG
5. Mr. E T 18 Jun 11 07 yrs 30 Jun 22 B A I 2008-09 - 111
Mani 1962 July 16 yrs (1982) (60 Good
PGT 90 M A %) 2009-10 -
English (TGT) (Eng) I Good
21 (1984) (63 2010-11 -
July B Ed %) Good
97 (1989) II 2011-12 -
(PGT) M Ed (63 VG
(1999) %) 2012-13 -
II Good
(58
%)
6. Mr. DK 19 July 05 11 yrs 31 Jul 25 B Sc I 2008-09 - 103
Chaudh 1965 Aug (Maths) (63 Good
ary 02 (1988) %) 2009-10 -
PGT M Sc II Good
Maths (Maths) (58 2010-11 -
(1991) %) Good
B Ed II 2011-12 -
(1992) (55 Good
%) 2012-13 -
Good
7. Mr. G S 24 12 09 yrs 31 May 33 B Sc I 2008-09 - 105
Patwal May July (1993) (60 VG
PGT 1973 04 M Sc %) 2009-10 -
Physics (PGT) (Phy ) I VG
(1995) (63 2010-11 -
B Ed %) VG
(1996) II 2011-12 -
(59 VG
%) 2012-13 -
VG
8. Mr. JR 16 Aug 06 07 yrs 31 Aug 36 B F A I 2008-09 - 100
Chaudh 1976 Nov (1988) (67 VG
ari 06 M V A %) 2009-10 -
PGT (PGT) (2000) I VG
Fine (61 2010-11 -
Arts %) VG
2011-12 -
VG
2012-13 -
VG
9. Mrs. 18 Aug 03 12 yrs 31 Aug 18 B A II 2008-09 - 112
Rupa 1958 Oct 5 ½ yrs (1993) (54 VG
Chatterj 96 M A %) 2009-10 -
i (TGT) (Eng) II OS
PGT 01 (1993) (55 2010-11 -
English Apr B Ed %) VG
(PGT) (1985) II 2011-12 -
(53 VG
%) 2012-13 -
OS
11. In the rejoinder the appellant relied upon an Office Memorandum
dated March 10, 1989 issued by Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of
India which prescribes the procedure to be observed by Departmental
Promotion Committee, the relevant portion reads as under:-
"2.1.1 Selection Method
2.1.2. At present DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise
their own methods and procedures for objective assessment
of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by
them. In order to ensure greater selectivity in matter of
promotions and for having uniform procedures for
assessment by DPCs, fresh guidelines are being prescribed.
The matter has been examined and the following broad
guidelines are laid down to regulate the assessment of
suitability of candidates by DPCs.
2.1.3 While merit has to be recognized and
rewarded, advancement in an officer‟s career should not be
regarded as a matter of course but should be earned by dint
of hard work, good conduct and result oriented
performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports
and based on strict and rigorous selection process.
2.2.1 Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the
basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The
evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non-
discriminatory. Hence -
(a) The DPC should consider CRs for equal number of
years in respect of all officers considered for promotion
subject to (c) below
(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers
for promotion on the basis of their service record and with
particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years.
However, in cases where the required qualifying service is
more than 5 years, the DPC should see the record with
particular reference to the CRs for the years equal to the
required qualifying service. (If more than one CR has been
written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant
year shall be considered together as the CR for one year.
(e) The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall
grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs, but should
make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the
CRs, because it has been noticed that some times the overall
grading in a CR may be inconsistent with the grading under
various parameters or attributes."
probably to bring home the point that the DPC had not followed the
procedure prescribed by the said office memorandum.
12. Vide impugned judgment dated April 08, 2015 the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In so
concluding, the learned Single Judge has held as follows:-
a) A perusal of the proceedings of the DPC shows that the DPC had
acted in conformity with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act,
1973 and the Rules framed thereunder and had graded the eligible
candidates on the basis of several criteria, such as (a) ACRs for five years,
(b) personality, (c) extra-curricular activity/contribution, (d) residual service,
(e) popularity amongst the staff and (f) attitude/behavior towards fellow
employees while making selection to the post of Vice-Principal.
(b) There is nothing in the proceedings of the DPC to show that the DPC
had adopted the seniority of the candidate as the sole criterion for making
selection to the post of Vice-Principal.
(c) There is no provision in the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973
which requires the DPC to make the selection to the post of Vice-Principal
only on the basis of merit and totally discard the seniority of the candidates.
On the contrary, the rules followed by DPC prescribed that seniority of
candidates would be given due weightage.
(d) There is nothing on record to shows that the respondent No.4 had
been preferred over the appellant solely on the basis of her seniority.
(e) The appellant had not pleaded bias against any particular member of
the DPC, but had made allegations of bias against the DPC as a body and
since she had not impleaded the members of the DPC as respondents the
writ petition had to be dismissed.
(f) No material was shown wherefrom bias of the members of the DPC
could be inferred.
(g) It is settled legal position that the Courts cannot sit in judgment over
the assessment of candidates made by the DPC and substitute its findings,
unless it is shown that DPC had acted in brazen disregard to the rules
governing the selection or had acted with oblique motives or the proceedings
of the DPC were vitiated.
(h) In the present case, the appellant has failed to point out any
irregularity either in the constitution of the DPC or the procedure adopted by
the DPC.
13. Ms.Jyoti Singh learned senior counsel for the appellant had argued
that an analysis of the chart prepared by the appellant and filed along with
the writ petition would show that the appellant was more meritorious than
respondent No.4, according to learned senior counsel this was apparent from
the fact that the appellant had better ACR gradings in the last preceding 5
years‟ assessment. Learned senior counsel argued that the DPC had itself
recorded, at serial No.8 of its minutes that candidates would be evaluated on
six parameters and bias was apparent from the fact that against the six
parameters marks allotted were not recorded. Learned senior counsel relied
upon the decision of Supreme Court reported as (1971) 2 SCR 430 A.
Peeriakaruppan etc vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. to buttress the argument
that if parameters on which evaluation had to be done was indicated then it
was the duty of the members of the DPC to record individual marks against
each parameter.
14. The original record of the DPC was not produced before us inspite of
directions as learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 informed that it was
not traceable and thus we proceed on the basis that the members of the DPC
did not allot the separate marks for the six criteria with reference whereto
the candidates had to be assessed.
15. Learned counsel(s) for the school and respondent No.4 justified the
recommendations of the DPC and argued that non-allocation of separate
marks for each of the six criteria on which the candidates were assessed by
the DPC had no bearing on the validity of the selection made by DPC.
Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of Supreme Court
reported as (2001) 8 SCC 119 Nilangshu Bhusan Basu vs. Deb K. Sinha &
Ors, (1986) 1 SCC 671 Dr. Keshav Ram Pal vs. U.P. Higher Education
Services Mission, Allahabad & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 1777 Lila Dhar vs. State
of Rajasthan and (1976) 4 SCC 153 State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. M.
Farida & Ors.
16. From a review of judicial pronouncements on the subject, following
legal principles relating to judicial review of assessment/selection made by a
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) can be culled out:-
I The function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor
adjudicatory. It is purely administrative.
II The Courts are not expected to play the role of an appellate authority
or an umpire in the acts and proceedings of the DPC and that it could not sit
in judgment over the selection made by the DPC unless the selection is
assailed as being vitiated by mala-fides or on the ground of it being
arbitrary.
III It is not the function of the Courts to hear appeals over the decisions
of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merit 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.
IV It is not the function of the Court to assess the service record of an
employee and order his promotion on that basis. It is for the DPC to evaluate
the same and make recommendation for promotion based on such
evaluation.
V It is exclusively the function of the Selection Committee to decide
what norms are to be applied in making an assessment inasmuch as
jurisdiction to make a selection is vested in the Selection Committee.
VI Where selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of
rival candidates determined in the course of interview of candidates
possessing the required eligibility and no rule or regulation is brought to the
notice of Court requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons, the
Selection Committee is under no legal obligation to record reasons in
support of its decision of selecting one candidate in preference to other.
VI Even the principles of natural justice do not require a Selection
Committee to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a candidate
in the absence of a statutory requirement.
VII The Selection Committee is required to make an overall assessment of
the confidential report dossiers of the officers in the zone of consideration. It
is not required to evaluate confidential report dossier of an individual in
isolation. (The above principles have been culled out from the decisions of
Supreme Court reported as 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481 Institute of Mental
Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K. Kalyana Raman & Ors, (1996) 4 SCC
64 Ramanand Prasad Singh & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors, 1997 (1) SLR
153 Smt. Anil Katiyar vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1990 SC 434 Dalpat
Abasaheb Solanke vs. B.S. Mahajan, (1996) 2 SCC 488 Nutan Arvind vs.
Union of India and JT 1992 (5) SC 633 State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Shrikant Chapeker).
17. In the instant case, no cogent reason/material has been given by
appellant to demonstrate as to how the selection of respondent No.4 to the
post of Vice-Principal made by DPC is faulty. A perusal of minutes of
meeting of the DPC held on November 11, 2013 shows that the DPC
assessed the candidates on following six criteria:- (i) Annual Confidential
Reports for five preceding years; (ii) Personality; (iii) Extra-Curricular
activities/contribution; (iv) Residual Service; (v) Popularity amongst the
staff and (vi) Attitude/Behaviour towards fellow employees. Merely because
appellant would have secured better marks than respondent No.4 in one of
the six criteria i.e. Annual Confidential Reports for five preceding years do
not necessarily imply that the appellant was a better candidate than the
respondent No.4 for the post of Vice-Principal. The self-serving chart placed
on record by the appellant comparing her performance with that of
respondent No.4 does not come to the rescue of appellant, particularly when
we find that appellant has given no particulars whatsoever of the so-called
bias of members of DPC against her.
18. Pertaining to the issue whether the DPC was obliged to give separate
marks against the six criteria, we find that in Peeriakaruppan‟s case (supra),
relied upon by the appellant, selection of candidates to various medical
colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on the basis of marks awarded to the
candidates by the Selection Committee at the interview was questioned. The
Selection Committee was authorized to allocate a maximum of 75 marks at
the interview on the basis of the following five criteria:- (i) Sports or
National Cadet Corps Activities; (ii) Extra Curricular special services; (iii)
General physical condition and endurance; (iv) General ability and (v)
Aptitude. The Selection Committee did not give separate marks for the five
criteria. It was in this contest, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"We may note that the committee had not divided the
interview marks under various heads nor were the marks
given on itemized basis. The marks list produced before us
shows that the marks were given in a lump. This is clearly
illegal."
19. The aforesaid observations made in Peeriakaruppan‟s case (supra)
were examined by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in M. Farida‟s
case (supra) wherein it was held as follows:-
"5. Whether a block mark should be given after interview
on a consideration of the qualities evinced by a candidate
or marks are to be allotted separately under each head
depends, in our opinion, upon the rule regulating the
examination. In Periakaruppan‟s case it was held that the
intention of the Government was that each of the specified
qualities should carry equal marks. In these appeals we
have not been called upon to decide whether the rule
concerned in Periakaruppan‟s case was correctly
interpreted. We do not however think that it would be
correct to assume as a general proposition that in every
case where the interviewing body is asked to take into
consideration several specific qualities, they must be of
equal value and separate marks should be allotted under
each head; on the contrary, in our opinion, where the rules
do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable to
suppose that the intention is that there should be a block
assessment on an integrated test." (Emphasis Supplied)
20. In said regards, following observations were made by a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar‟s case (supra):-
"It is true that in Periakaruppan‟s case the court held that
the non-allocation of marks under various heads in the
interview test was illegal but that was because the
instructions to the Selection Committee provided that the
marks were to be awarded at the interview on the basis of
five distinct tests. It was thought that the failure to allocate
marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality.
But, in the case before us, the rule merely and generally
indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview test
into distinct, if we may so call them, sub-tests." (Emphasis
Supplied)
21. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar‟s case
(supra).
22. We may also note that in Nilganshu‟s case (supra) a similar
contention advanced by non-selected candidates, that no break-up of the
marks at the interview had been made for different factors taken into
consideration for selecting a candidate, was repelled in the following terms:-
"We find no substance in this submission also. The
Selection Committee awarded the marks to the different
candidates as would be evident on a perusal of the judgment
of the High Court. The selected candidate had got the
highest marks. The selection was by the Public Service
Commission. All the candidates responded to the
qualifications as prescribed. In our view the selection
cannot be thrown out merely on such contentions as raised
by the petitioners viz. there was no break up of marks or it
was not as it should have been according to the petitioners.
All candidates possessed the required qualifications and
experience, and they must have been working in different
organizations. The assessment of their merit on the basis of
their work and experience and personal interview by the
expert body cannot be discarded on such grounds. The SLP
has thus no force." (Emphasis Supplied)
23. The ratio which can be culled out from above decisions is thus: „In the
absence of statutory requirement, there is no obligation on the Selection
Committee to award separate marks for each of criteria on which it assesses
a candidate.‟
24. In the instant case, no statutory requirement has been pointed to us
requiring the DPC to award separate marks for each of the criteria on which
it had assessed the candidates while making selection to the post of Vice-
Principal. As a necessary corollary thereof, the action of the DPC of not
allocating separate marks for each of the six criteria on which it had assessed
the candidates cannot be faulted.
25. In view of legal principles culled out by us above, particularly the
principle that it is not the function of the Courts to hear appeals over the
decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merit of
the candidates, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is hereby
dismissed.
26. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 10, 2016
mamta
