Santanu Das vs National School Of Drama & Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 2006 Del

$~

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Reserved on:    25.02.2019
                                      Pronounced on: 12.04.2019

+      W.P.(C) 7800/2012
       SANTANU DAS                                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Rajeev Pandey and Mr. Nirmal
                                      Mishra, Advocates.

                         versus

       NATIONAL SCHOOL OF DRAMA & ORS          ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for R-1 &
                            R-2.
                            Mr. Balaji Subramanian, Mr. Samar
                            Bansal and Ms. Ishani Banerjee,
                            Advocates for R-3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                                  JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the

impugned selection procedure and further selection of respondent no. 3

herein, vide the interview dated 20.02.2012 for the post of Assistant

Professor (Extension) in pursuance of the advertisement in December, 2011.

Further seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no. 1 & 2 to follow

and implement the guidelines of reservation policy for SCs and STs for the

recruitment of teaching faculties in the institutions. The petitioner also seeks

directions thereby considering the case of the petitioner after complying the

reservation policy for SC/ST for the recruitment of faculties in the

institutions amongst the candidates who had applied in response to the

advertisement dated December, 2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 is an autonomous

organization under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, fully

financed by the Ministry of Culture, Government of India i.e. respondent

no.2. The respondent no. 1 is engaged in training which covers every aspect

of theatre and in which theory is related to practice. The respondent no. 1 in

view of its curriculum recruits teaching faculty for different programmes.

Accordingly, the said respondent vide an advertisement in the month of

December, 2011 on its website invited applications for the post of Assistant

Professor(Extension) under the pay band of ₹ 15600-39100 plus grade pay

₹ 5400 wherein the requisite qualifications and experience of the candidates

were mentioned.

3. The petitioner has graduated from National School of Drama in the

year 1998 and has been engaged in theatre activities for quite a long period

of time. The petitioner has worked as freelancer theatre designer, director

and teacher. He has also worked with National School of Drama in different

theatre workshops as teacher and camp director. The petitioner cleared the

NET exams conducted by UGC in 1999 December and joined Rabindra

Bharti University as Lecturer of set design in Drama Department in April,

2001.

4. Further the case of the petitioner is that he being qualified candidate

applied for the post and the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 16.02.2012

called the petitioner for an interview and accordingly he appeared on

20.12.2012. During the course of interview, the petitioner informed the

panel that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He inquired about the

fact that in the advertisement by the respondent no. 1, there was no mention

about the reservation for SC/ST. He further stated that in any case since

NSD is an institution fully funded by the Central Government through the

Ministry of Culture, the Brochure on SC/ST reservation is applicable to

NSD.

5. The petitioner was the only candidate who has been teaching in a

university namely Ravindra Bharti University from 2001 on regular basis.

The petitioner has a wide experience in theatre workshops and has been

working regularly with his own theatre group called Kalyani Kalamandalam.

He has also published books and has done some acclaimed projects.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that on 30.03.2012

it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the selection procedure

has been completed and a candidate namely Amit Grover i.e. respondent no.

3 herein has been selected. Left with no alternative, the petitioner vide an

application dated 11.05.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005

sought information regarding the list of teaching staff who belong to the

Scheduled Casts category alongwith details of position. Accordingly, the

respondent no. 1 vide its reply dated 15.06.2012 informed that there was not

a single teacher from the Scheduled Caste community. The aforesaid reply

of the respondent no. 1 establishes that in such a prestigious institution none

of the teachers are from the SC category and cast a serious doubt on

implementation of the government reservation policy which is required to be

followed by all the government institutions.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being not satisfied

by the selection procedure, vide an application dated 11.05.2012 under the

Right to Information Act, sought the copy of interview performance mark

sheet, detail profile of the candidates who had applied for the post and the

details of the selectors. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 vide its reply dated

27.06.2012 informed that there is no provision to prepare performance sheet

in NSD at all.

8. It is further submitted that the selection of the teacher ought to have

been done through a transparent procedure and any interview or assessment

can be done transparently and fairly only by recording the observations of

the selectors and then judging the most suitable candidate for the post on the

basis of those observations. It provides an authenticity to the entire selection

process. However, the non-preparation of the performance sheet apparently

depicts the arbitrariness and extraneous consideration in the selection

procedures. Thus, action of the respondent is in violation of fundamental

rights acquainted under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of

India. The respondent cannot curtail rights of citizens which guarantees the

right to be treated equal. Article 16 ensures statutory right to the applicant to

have equality of opportunity in public employment.

9. The respondent no. 1 has failed to justify the transparency of the

selection procedure, in view of the fact that respondent no. 1 did not prepare

and maintain any performance sheet of the candidates who appeared in the

interview for the post in question. Thus, the whole process of selection is

illegal and contrary to public policy and public interest and it is therefore,

liable to be set aside.

10. In case of Jaskaran Singh vs Punjabi University Patiala and

Another, decided on 15.05.2015 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court,

held that if neither grading nor criteria is laid down, then how the

performance of the candidates has been assessed by the Interview Board and

how a candidate, who has an excellent academic and research record, was

found to have been weak before the Interview Board. Accordingly, the Court

set aside the selection on the ground that the Selection Committee has failed

to adopt any criteria for assessing the respective merits of the candidates and

the respondents were directed to make fresh selection by calling all

shortlisted candidates for interview, after laying down the criteria. The said

judgement has been upheld by the division bench of the aforesaid court in

the case of Babita Rani vs Punjabi University, Patiala and others, LPA no.

2081/2011 vide order dated 14.11.2011 whereby observed that the selection

is to be made only on the performance of the candidates before the Selection

Board.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was

incumbent upon the Interview Committee to have assessed and adjudged all

the candidates appearing before it in terms of reasonable and relevant

parameters in the nature of qualifications possessed, work experience,

research, publications, participation in conferences, workshops, seminars

etc. Nothing of the sort has been done by the Interview Committee while

conducting the interview for purposes of selection to the post of Assistant

Professor (Extension). Suffice to say, such a process of selection does not

inspire any confidence at all. The selection process under question as such

cannot be sustained.

12. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1

and 2 submits that the Selection Committee headed by the Chairperson of

the NSD society, inter alia comprised of representative of the Ministry of

Culture and outside experts besides Director and faculty members of the

NSD, interviewed all the candidates, assessed their performance and

recommended respondent no. 3, accordingly he was appointed on

23.03.2012 vide letter no. NSD(Admn.)/1220/2011-12.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that in the year 1997, the post

based reservation was introduced by the Government and accordingly

reservation roster has been introduced with effect from 02.07.1997. After

introducing the reservation roster the vacancies arising thereafter are being

filled up according to the Government reservation policy. According to the

roster, 6th point in the roster is reserved for SC candidate. As and when the

post is filled up, it will go to a candidate belonging to SC community. The

Selection Committee for direct recruitment posts could also evolve their

own procedure and process for interview of various candidates short-listed

for the purpose. The selection was made on the basis of unanimous,

consensus decision, recommendations of the Committee. Therefore, neither

there is any violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner nor there is

any breach of the Government's reservation policy as contended by the

petitioner.

14. In additional affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1, it is clarified that

instead of point 6, point 7 is meant for SC candidates. One post for this

category is already kept vacant. The respondent no. 1 not being a university,

it does not come under the preview of UGC and thus guidelines issued by

the UGC are not applicable to the NSD. However, the post graduate diploma

in Dramatic Arts awarded by the National School of Drama is duly

recognized by the Ministry of Education and Culture, department of

education vide notification no. RC.Q.110236/22/11/T-7/1, dated 06.09.1980.

15. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the procedure has

been followed by the respondent no. 1 in selection for the post in question.

Under the guise of transparency, the petitioner admitted to make out a case

that he was the most suitable candidate. The petitioner is currently working

as Associate Professor at Ravindra Bharti University, Kolkata and on a

regular post and he is contesting the case for the post of Assistant Professor

which is downgraded post. There is no violation of any reservation policy as

has been alleged by the petitioner rather the reservation policy has been

adhered to as per the government norms as also has been deposed by the

respondent no. 1in its counter affidavit.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record.

17. The respondent no. 1 is an autonomous organisation under the

Societies Registration Act- XXI of 1860, fully financed by the Ministry of

Culture i.e. respondent no. 2.

18. The petitioner has graduated from the National School of Drama in

the year 1998 and has been engaged in theatre activities for quite a long

period of time. He has worked as free lancer, theatre designer, director and

teacher. He has also worked with National School of Drama in different

theatre workshops as teacher and director. The petitioner cleared NET exam

conducted by UGC in 1999 December and joined Ravindera Bharti

University as Lecturer of the set design in Drama Department in April, 2001

and continued there till date.

19. The petitioner has a wide experience in theatre workshop and has

been working regularly with his own theatre group called Kalyani

Kalamandalam. He has also published books and has done some acclaimed

projects.

20. As admitted, NSD is an institution fully funded by the Central

Government through the Ministry of Culture, therefore, the Brochure on

SC/ST reservation is applicable. When the petitioner was not selected for the

post in question he made an application dated 11.05.2012 under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 and sought information regarding list of teaching

staffs who belongs to the SCs category alongwith details of possession.

21. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 vide its reply dated 15.06.2012

admitted that there was not a single teacher from the SC/ST community. The

aforesaid reply of respondent no. 1 establishes that in such prestigious

institutions none of the teachers are from the SC/ST, this caste upon a

serious doubt of implementation of the government reservation policy which

is required to be followed by the government institutions.

22. In addition to above, the petitioner vide application dated 11.05.2012

under the Right to Information Act sought the copy of interview

performance, mark-sheet, details of the candidates who had applied for the

post and details of the selectors. In reply to the said application dated

27.06.2012, the respondent no. 1 admitted that there is no provision to

prepare performance sheet in National School of Drama at all.

23. It is a requirement for every institutions under the Central/State

Government, the Selection ought to be done through a transparent procedure

and any interview or assessment should be done transparently and fairly

only by recording of observations of the Selectors then judging the most

suitable candidates for the post on the basis of those observations. However,

non preparation of the performance sheet apparently depicts the arbitrariness

and erroneous selection procedure. In such a situation the action of any

institution including respondent no. 1 here is in violation of fundamental

rights enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of the India. The

respondents cannot curtail the right of citizen which guarantees the right to

be treated equal.

24. Article 16 ensures statutory right to the applicant to have equality of

opportunity in public employment. However, respondent no. 1 has failed to

justify the transparency of the selection procedure, in view of the fact that

the respondent no. 1 did not prepare and maintain any performance sheet of

the candidates who appear in the interview for the post in question. It is

pertinent to mention that if neither grading nor criteria is laid down then how

the performance of the candidates has been assessed by the Interview Board

and how the candidate who has excellent academic and research record, as

the petitioner herein, had failed in the assessment before the Interview

Board.

25. The selection is to be made only on the performance of the candidates

before the Selection Board. It was incumbent upon the interview committee

to have assessed and adjudged the candidates appearing before it in terms of

reasonable and relevant parameters in the nature of qualifications possessed,

experience, research, publication, participation in conferences, workshops,

seminars etc., but nothing of the sort has been done in the present case by

the interview committee. Thus, such process of selection does not inspire

any confidence at all. On this count alone the selection process in question

deserves to be quashed.

26. In addition to the above, it is an admitted case of respondent no. 1 that

in the year 1997, the post reservation was introduced by the government and

accordingly reservation roster has been introduced with effect from

02.07.1997. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that according to the

roster, 6th point in the roster is served for SC candidates. Whereas, in the

additional affidavit respondent no. 1 has stated that instead of point 6, point

7 is meant for SC candidates. It is further admitted by the respondent no. 1

that one post for this category is already kept vacant and also admitted that

there is not a single teacher from the SC/ST community. This fact castes

serious doubt on implementation of the government reservation policy

which is strongly required to be followed by all the government institutions

including respondent no. 1 herein who is fully funded by the Central

Government. Thus, the section process deserves to be quashed on this count

also.

27. In view of the above discussions and in the facts and circumstances of

the case, I hereby quash the selection process for the post of Assistant

Professor (Extension) in pursuance of the advertisement in the December,

2011. Consequently, the selection of respondent no. 3 is set aside.

28. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 is directed to reprocess the

selection process afresh within six weeks from the receipt of this order and

select the candidate based upon the assessment to be assessed by the

Interview Board. It is further directed that while processing the same the

respondent no. 1 shall implement the reservation policy meant for SCs/STs

category.

29. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE APRIL 12, 2019 @mit