Tripura High Court
Dr. Sandip Saha vs The State Of Tripura on 19 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A.No.43 of 2023
Dr. Sandip Saha,
son of Subhash Chandra Saha,
resident of Town Pratapgarh, Ramthakur Road,
Near Ramthakur Boys' School, Agartala,
West Tripura
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
Khejurbagan, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Director,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, Siksha Sadan,
Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
3. Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC),
To be represented by Secretary, TPSC, Akhaura Road,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
4. The Secretary,
Tripura Public Service Commission,
Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 799001
5. Dr. Aditya Kumar Das,
son of late Sukumar Das,
Notice upon the Respondent No.5 may be served
Through the O/o the Secretary, Tripura Public Service
Commission, Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799001
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2024
Date of Judgment
& Order : 19.06.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
[Mr. B. Palit, J]
This present writ appeal is preferred challenging the
judgment and order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Learned Single
Judge in connection with Case No.WP(C). By the said judgment, the
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-
petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, Learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-petitioner as well as Mr. Raju Datta, Learned Counsel
appearing for the Tripura Public Service Commission, i.e. TPSC-
respondent. Other respondents did not contest the appeal.
3. Before proceeding to the merit of the appeal, let us revisit
the subject matter of the dispute for which the writ petitioner i.e. the
appellant herein preferred the writ petition before the Hon'ble Single
Judge. According to the appellant-petitioner, the Secretary, Tripura
Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the TPSC vide
advertisement No.8/22 dated 24.08.2022 invited online application from
bonafide citizen of India for selection of candidates for recruitment to 40
numbers of vacancies i.e. SC-05, ST-16, UR-19 on different subjects for
the post of Assistant Professor, Group-A, Gazetted, Government General
Degree Colleges, under the Education (Higher) Department, Government
of Tripura. In the said advertisement, for the subject of Physical
Education, 3 posts (SC-1, ST-1, UR-1) were advertised. The essential
condition for the post of Assistant Professor, Group-A Gazetted, as per
the advertisement was as follows :
(I) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS :
A.(i) A Master‟s Degree with 55% of the marks (or an
equivalenet grade in a point-scale wherever the grading
system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject
from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an
accredited foreign University.
(ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the
candidates should have cleared the National Eligibility Test
(NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR or a similar test
accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have
been awarded a Ph. D degree in accordance with the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for Award of M. Phil./Ph. D Degree)
Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from
time to time as the case may be exempted from
NET/SLET/SET:
Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph. D
programme prior to July 11, 2009 shall be governed by the
provisions of the then existing Ordinances/ By
Laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the degree
and such Ph. D candidates shall be exempted from the
requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and
appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions
in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the
fulfillment of the following conditions :
a) The Ph. D degree of the candidate has been awarded in
a regular mode;
b) The Ph. D thesis has been evaluate by at least two
external examiners;
c) An open Ph. D viva voce of the candidate has been
conducted;
d) The candidate has published two research papers from
his/her Ph. D work, out of which at least one in a referred
journal;
e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based
on his/her Ph. D work in conferences/seminars
sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or
any similar agency.
f) The fulfillment of these conditions is to be certified by
the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the
University concerned.
(B) The Ph. D degree obtained from a Foreign
University/Institution with a ranking among top 500 in the
World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the
following :
(i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) The times Higher
Education (THE) or
(iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU)
of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai)
Note:- NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for such
Masters Degree Programmes in disciplines for which
NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or
similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET. (e.g.
Kokborok and Engineering discipline)"."
4. In the advertisement it was also mentioned that selection
procedure will be governed as per Annexure-A & B of the notified
schedule for the post of Assistant Professor, Government General Degree
College. Table-3B of the notified Schedule for the post of Assistant
Professor, Government Degree College, provides for criteria for short
listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in
Colleges. Annexure-B of the notified Schedule for the post of Assistant
Professor in Colleges provides selection procedure. It was further stated
that the overall selection procedure shall be transparent/objective &
creditable methodology of analysis of merits & credentials of the
applicants based on the weightage given to the performance of the
different relevant parameters and his/her performance on a grading
system proforma, based on Appendix-II, Table-3B of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 as amended. It was a further case of the appellant-
petitioners that academic score as specified in Annexure-II, Table-3B for
Colleges, shall be considered for short listing of candidates (maximum-5
candidates for each Post notified) for interview. It was mentioned that
TPSC shall constitute one Selection Committee and fix qualifying cut off
marks, if any, for interview as per UGC Guideline, 2018 as amended time
to time.
5. Thereafter, vide corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 issued by
the TPSC, it was conveyed that Screening of API score would be followed
by selection process of interview with the weightage of 15% & API Score
weightage of 85% in adherence to the New Recruitment Policy, 2018 and
further notification in the year 2020 & UGC Regulations, 2018. For the
sake of convenience, Table-3B which provides for short listing of
candidates is mentioned herein below :
Table:3B
Criteria for Short-listing of candidates for Interview for the Post of
Assistant Professors in Colleges
S.N. Academic Record Score
1. Graduation 80% 60% to 55% to less 45% to
and less than 60% less
above than =16 than
=21 80% 55%
=19 =10
2. Post-Graduation 80% 60% to 55% (50% in case of
and less SC/ST/OBC(non-
above than creamy layer)/PWD)to
=25 80% less than 60% =2023
=23
3. M. Phil. 60% 55% to less than 60% =05
and
above
=07
6. Research Publications (2 06
marks for each research
publications published in
Peer Reviewed or UGC
listed Journals)
7. Teaching/Post Doctoral 10
Experience (2 marks for
one year each)
8. Awards
International/National 03
Level (Awards given by
International
Organisations/Government
of India recognized
National Level Bodies)
State-Level (Awards given 02
by State Government)
#However, if the period of teaching/post-doctoral experience is less
than one year then the marks shall be reduced proportionately.
Note:(A)
(i) M. Phil. + Ph.D. Maximum - 25 Marks
(ii) JRF/NET/SET Maximum - 10 Marks
(iii) In awards category Maximum - 03 Marks
B. Number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by
the college.
C. Academic Score = 84
Research Publications = 06
Teaching Experience = 10
TOTAL = 100
D. SLET/SET score shall be valid for appointment in respective
State Universities/Colleges/institutions only."
6. The appellant was eligible for being considered for the post
of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges in the
subject of Physical Education as the appellant had all the requisite
qualifications as mentioned in the said advertisement and accordingly,
the appellant applied for the said post. It was also submitted that the
appellant obtained Ph.D. in Physical Education from Annamalai University
in 2015. Accordingly, the certificate has been issued by the concerned
University. The appellant also served in two spells as Assistant Professor
in Abhiruchi Institute of Physical Education, Sarusajai, Guwahati,
affiliated to Guwahati University, w.e.f. 10.11.2014 to 25.07.2016 and
again from 20.02.2017 to 06.01.2018. The Director of the said institution
issued an Experience Certificate in his favor. The appellant also served as
an Assistant Professor, at Lovely College of Physical Education, Punjab,
w.e.f. 08.01.2018 to 02.07.2018. The Principal of the LPU issued
certificate to the effect. It was further submitted that since 02.07.2018
to till date the appellant was serving as Assistant Professor, Health &
Physical Education at Bhavans' Tripura College of Teacher Education. The
Principal, of the said College has issued experience certificate to that
effect. The appellant served as Assistant Professor of Lovely College of
Physical Education, Jalandhar, Punjab, w.e.f. 08.01.2018 to 02.07.2018.
In all the institutes the Appellant served in the UGC Scale as Assistant
Professor.
7. The Under Secretary, TPSC, vide notification dated
13.10.2022 published extract of minutes of the Scrutiny Committee in
connection with recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor,
Government (General) Degree Colleges. In that notification, it was
mentioned that the said minutes has been uploaded in TPSC website and
all the candidates were instructed to go through the extract of minutes of
the Scrutiny Committee and to submit representation with supporting
documents, if any, to the Commissions' Secretariat within 19.10.2022
(5.30 pm). In the said notification, it was further clarified that in regard
to Teaching/Post-Doctoral Experience (2 marks for 1 year each),
candidates intending to claim such experience will have to submit
documents strictly in conformity with the Clause-10.0 (Para 'a' to 'f' as
the case may be) of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Failing which his/her
Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience will not be counted. Along with the
said notification, minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, regarding Academic
Performance Indicator (API) Score/Academic Record/Research
Performance of the candidates, in different subjects, were given. It
appears that in the subject of Physical Education, in total 29 candidates
including the appellant, applied for the said post and also in the said
notification, the appellants API score vide application ID
No.08/2022/0071 has been shown as 73.00. As per the notification
maximum 5 candidates for each post notified will be called for interview
out of short listed candidates. As a result thereof, the appellant will not
be called for interview because there are 5 candidates whose API score
are above that of the appellant. On 13.10.2022, the TPSC has published
list of provisional eligible candidates for interview for recruitment to the
post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges, vide
Advertisement No.08/2022. In the said list, the appellant's name did not
figure. According to the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee has failed to
properly assess the appellant's Academic Performance and as a result
thereof, the appellant has been deprived of correct and proper API score.
The appellant submitted a representation on 19.10.2022 to the
Secretary, TPSC, ventilating his grievances against the erroneously
computed API score and for necessary correction of API score. In his
representation dated 19.10.2022, the appellant submitted that his
teaching experience has not been taken into consideration in course of
finalization of API Score/Academic Record and Research Performance.
Finding no way, the appellant preferred the writ petition before the High
Court which was numbered as WP(C)No.906 of 2022 before the Hon'ble
High Court with the following reliefs :
"i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or
order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature
shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to
compute afresh the API score of the Petitioner after taking
into account Teaching Experience & Award of the
Petitioner, by giving & adding 10 marks & 2 marks (in
total 12 marks) respectively to the Petitioner.
ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or
order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature
shall not be issued whereby quashing & cancelling the
minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the
TPSC, for the subject of Physical Education in pursuance
with the Advertisement No.08/2022, so far the API score
of the Petitioner is concerned & to compute the API score
of the Petitioner after taking into account Teaching
Experience & Award of the Petitioner & thereafter to
include the name of the Petitioner in the list of shortlisted
candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (UR), Govt.
General Degree College) in Physical Education."
8. Thereafter, after hearing both the sides, this High Court
after considering submissions of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 vide order
dated 07.11.2022 passed in WP(C)No.906 of 2022 allowed the writ
petition. The operative portion of the order runs as follows :
"Mr. Datta, learned counsel after perusing those salary
certificates has fairly submitted that the marks against
API, i.e. 10 marks should be included with the total marks
awarded by Scrutiny Committee, that is, which, if added,
would be 83 instead of 73.
I have considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is
directed that the TPSC shall add 10 marks as API score of
the petitioner and short-list him so that he can appear in
the selection process. It is also directed that TPSC would
take interview of the petitioner."
9. It was further submitted that this High Court in the
aforesaid order mandated the respondents TPSC that the TPSC shall add
10 marks as API score of the appellant and short-list his him so that he
can appear in the selection process. It was also mandated that the TPSC
would take interview of the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated
21.11.2022 forwarded a copy of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed in
WP(C)No.906 of 2022 to the Office of respondent TPSC, for compliance
of the aforesaid order but the respondent did not take any step.
Thereafter, the appellant filed contempt petition vide Cont.(C)No.05 of
2023. This High Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 disposed of the
contempt case as during pendency of the contempt case, the respondent
TPSC took the interview of the appellant. After that, the Controller of
Examination, TPSC issued Provisional Admission Certificate in favour of
the appellant asking him to appear before the Interview Board. By the
said Certificate, the appellant was informed that in pursuance with the
order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the Hon'ble High Court in
WP(C)No.906 of 2022 interview/personal test for recruitment to the Post
of Assistant Professor, Group-A (Gazetted), Government (General)
Degree Colleges vide Advertisement No.08/2022 which will be held on
28.01.2023 and the appellant was asked to appear at
interview/personality test, by reporting at 9.30 am of 28.01.2023.
Thereafter, the Secretary, TPSC vide impugned notification dated
20.03.2023 recommended the name of Aditya Kumar Das i.e. the
respondent No.5 for the post of Physical Education under UR category.
From the said notification, it appears that total marks of the respondent
No.5 was 81.85. It was further mentioned that total marks included API
score 85% plus PI score 15%. Both are in weightage, i.e. in relative but
not in absolute marks in terms of notification dated 05.03.2018.
10. As per minutes of the Scrutiny Committee regarding
provisional API score, academic score, research performance of the
candidate in connection with the recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges vide Advertisement
No.08/2022 the appellants API score was shown as 73.00. The appellant
was not satisfied with the API score. As the appellant was deprived of 10
marks due to non counting of 10 marks for his teaching experience, the
appellant filed WP(C)No.906 of 2022 and the Hon'ble High Court by order
dated 07.11.2022, allowed the writ petition after holding that the
appellant is entitled to adding of 10 marks as API score of 73 for his
teaching experience. According to him, the total marks is higher than the
respondent No.5 but the respondent No.5 has been recommended for the
post of Assistant Professor, Government (General) Degree Colleges vide
Advertisement No.08/202 depriving the appellant of being recommended
of appointment to the said post.
11. It was further submitted the appellant's API after adding 10
marks in terms of the order of the High Court in connection with Case
No.WP(C)906 of 2022 is higher than the respondent No.5. Moreover, the
appellant also score better in the personal interview and got higher
marks than the respondent No.5. But most arbitrarily, his name was not
recommended by the respondent TPSC. So, again he filed WP(C)No.190
of 2023 challenging the recommendation made by TPSC vide notification
dated 20.03.2023 recommending the name of respondent No.5 for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Government (General)
Degree Colleges in pursuance of the Advertisement No.08/2022. In the
said case, the TPSC contested and Learned counsel for the TPSC placed
the overall merit list of the candidates which is as follows :
Sl. Name of Father‟s Category Roll API 85% Marks Total Remarks/
No. Candidate Name No. of API obtained Marks Age
Score in obtained
Interview (Out of
(Out of 100)
15)
1. Dr. Aditya Lt. UR PHY_ 81. 68.85 13 81.85 Recomme
Kumar Das Sukumar EDU_ 00 nded
Das 0822
2. Sandip Subhash UR PHY_ 83. 70.55 10 80.55 Wait List
Saha Chandra EDU_ 00 38-07-24
Saha 0822
3. Jitendra Kali UR PHY_ 83. 70.55 10 80.55 32-09-29
Singh Prasad EDU_ 00
Singh 0822
4. Mohammad Mohamm UR PHY_ 81. 68.55 9 77.85
Gulam ad EDU_ 00
Sabir Mustafa 0822
5. Manas Das Dhirendra SC PHY_ 70. 70.00 7 66.50 Recomme
Kumar EDU_ 00 nded
Das 0822
6. Praloy Sri Nitai SC PHY_ 57. 57.00 12 60.45 Wait List
Kanti Lal Sarkar EDU_ 00
Sarkar 0822
7. Tipu Sarkar Arun SC PHY_ 56. 56.00 11 58.60
Sarkar EDU_ 00
8. Becon Uttam ST PHY_ 50. 50.00 14 56.50 Recomme
Debbarma Kumar EDU_ 00 nded
Debbarm 0822
9. Sanjoy Harendra SC PHY_ 54. 54.00 10 55.90
Sarkar Chandra EDU_ 00
Sarkar 0822
10. Lalhmangai Biakchun ST PHY_ 50. 50.00 13 55.50 Wait List
hsanga gnunga EDU_ 00
Sailo Sailo 0822
11. Baris Riang Bhushan ST PHY_ 56. 56.00 7 54.60
Riang EDU_ 00
12. Parimal Late ST PHY_ 50. 42.50 7 49.50
Debbarma Mangal EDU_ 00
Debbarm 0822
12. Finally, after hearing both the sides, Learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner. The operative
portion of the order of the Learned Single Judge runs as follows :
"12. In the light of aforesaid settled principles discussed Tajvir
Singh Sodhi (supra), if the present case is considered, then, it
comes to light that the petitioner herein neither has alleged any
bias or favouritism or mala fide against the members of the
Selection Committee nor has alleged any material irregularity in
the constitution of the Selection Committee.
13. This Court does not find any procedural defects in the
methodology adopted by the Selection Committee in selecting
the best candidate i.e. respondent no.5 in the post of Assistant
Professor (Physical Education). The Selection Committee
recommended the name of respondent no.5 as he obtained
marks then that of the petitioner.
14. In the light of above observation and discussions, the
present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed."
13. Challenging that, the present appellant has preferred this
appeal. The TPSC also contested this case by filing the counter-affidavit
on 31.08.2023. In paras-5 to 8 of the said counter-affidavit, the TPSC
submitted as under :
"5. That with reference to the statements made in paragraph
No.1(D) & 1(E) of the writ appeal, the answering respondents
states that in the Paragraph No.4 & 5 of the Annexure-B of the
Advertisement dated 24.03.2022 clearly states as follows:-
Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in
Government(General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC
Regulation.
"4. As per State's New Recruitment policy vide
Notification No.F.20(1)-GA(P7T)?18 dated 05.06.2018,
maximum of 10% weightage of total marks may be
allocated for the Interview/Personality Test for selection
purpose. Accordingly 10 marks for Interview/Personality
Test is fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Govt.
(General) Degree Colleges.
5. Merit list will be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90%
of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and
Interview marks scored by the candidate and following
other instruction in the latest guideline."
So, as paragraph No.4 & 5 of Annexure-B of the
Advt. No.08/2022 dated 24.03.2022, maximum of 10%
weightage of total marks for Interview/Personality Test was
fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Govt. (General) Degree
Colleges. Therefore, 10% is equal to 10 marks and Merit list
would be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90% of mars obtained
by the candidate as per API score and Interview marks scored by
the candidate i.e. 90+10=100.
Thereafter the Tripura Public Service Commission published a
Corrigendum on 12.04.2022 in connection with Advt.No.08/2022
dated 24.03.2022 and stated as follows:-
"Please read as per State's New Recruitment Policy vide
Notification No.F.1(435)-DHE/Estt(G)/2019/266(4)
dated 16.01.2021, maximum of 15% weightage of total
marks may be allocated for the Interview/Personality
Test for selection purpose in Sl. No.4 (Annexure-B).
Other terms and condition will remain unchanged."
As per Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022, the Tripura Public Service
Commission only modified 15% instead of 10% of total marks for
the Interview/Personality Test. So, here 15% is equal to 15
marks.
Subsequently, the Tripura Public Service Commission published
another Corrigendum on 13.10.2022 in connection with Advt.
No.08/2022 dated 24.03.2022 and stated as follows:-
"Screening API score followed by selection process of
Interview with a weightage of 15% and API score
weightage of 85% in adherence of Now Recruitment
polity, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC
regulation, 2018".
As per Corrigendum dated 13.10.2022, the Tripura Public Service
Commission modified 85% of marks obtained by the candidate as
per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate as
per API score and Interview marks scored by the candidate i.e.
85+15=100. A copy of the Annexure-B of the Advertisement
dated 24.03.2022, copy of the Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022
and copy of the Corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 are annexed
hereto and those are respectively marked as Annexure-R/1, R/2
& R/3.
6. That with reference to the statements made in paragraphs
No.1(T) to 1(X) of the writ appeal, the answering respondents
denies that the appellant‟s total marks would be higher than the
respondent No.5 or that the respondent No.5 has been
recommended for the post of Assistant Professor, Govt.(General)
Degree Colleges, vide Advertisement No.08/2022, depriving the
appellant of being recommended for appointment in the said
post. The answering respondents further denies that the
Appellant‟s API after adding 10 marks in terms of the Order of
the Hon‟ble High Court in WP(C) 906 of 2022 is higher than the
respondent No.5 or that most illegally & arbitrarily the appellant
was not recommended by the Respondent-TPSC. The answering
respondents state that after completion of interview, the Tripura
Public Service Commission prepared the Merit list b aggregating
the 85% of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score
and Interview marks scored by the candidate i.e. 85+15=100.
The marks of the Respondent No.5 and the Appellant are as
follows:-
Name Roll No Total 80% Marks Total Remarks
API of API obtained in marks
Score Score Interview(out obtained
of 15) (out of
100)
Respondent PHY_EDU- 81.00 68.85 13 81.85 Recommende
No.5 082201 d
Appellant PHY_EDU- 83.00 70.55 10 80.55 Wait List
082215
The above-mentioned table was also reflected in paragraph No.6
of the impugned Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 03.04.2023 in
WP(C) 190 of 2013 by the Hon‟ble High Court. The answering
respondents further state that out of 100 marks, the respondent
No.5 obtained higher marks than that of the appellant and as
such the name of the respondent No.5 had been recommended
by the Tripura Public Service Commission and the name of the
appellant was placed as a wait list candidate.
7. That the answering respondents state that out of total 100
marks 85 percent i.e. 85 marks are meant for awarding API score
and the balance 15 percent i.e. 15 marks out of 100 is kept for
interview. The API score of respondent no.5 is 81.00. Thereafter,
85% of total API score of 81.00 obtained by respondent no.5 is
taken into account and it comes to 68.85. Moreover, the
respondent No.5 obtained 13 marks in interview out of 15 marks
and in total he obtained 81.85 marks. The API score of the
Appellant is 83.00. Accordingly, 85% of the API score, is taken
into account then, it comes to 70.55. But, the appellant obtained
10 marks in interview out of 15 marks and in total he obtained
80.55(70.55+10). Since, in total, the Respondent no.5 obtained
higher marks (81.85) than that of the appellant, the name of
respondent No.5 has been recommended by the Tripura Public
Service Commission and the name of the appellant is placed as
wait list candidate at Serial No.2.
8. That the answering respondents humbly states that clause-4
of Annexure-B with Annexure-A lays down the criteria for short-
listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant
Professor in colleges. Out of 100 marks, 85% marks is allotted to
API score and 15 is left to personal interview. A combined
reading of the Corrigendum dated 12.04.2022 and 13.10.2022
along with Annexure-B and A which are read with the terms of
the advertisement No.08/2022 makes it evident that while out of
total marks, 15 marks are allotted to interview while in
computing the API score out of total marks obtained under the
API category 85% weightage is only to be given. This formula
has been devised by the Education (Higher) Department as per
the State‟s New Recruitment Policy vide notification dated
05.06.2018 and followed by the TPSC as per its Corrigendum
dated 13.10.2022 with the only difference that the interview
marks would be 15 instead of 10. The answering respondent
further states that laying down of a formula for recruitment
process lies in the domain of the administrative body or experts
such as, the Tripura Public Service Commission and in the
present case the application of the formula has been made in a
non-discriminatory transparent manner to all the candidates.
Moreover, Table 3B in itself indicates that weightage has been
given on several categories such as, of the academic record for
the reason that academic scores awarded by different
Examination Boards and Universities cannot be said to be
standardized across the country. It is the experience that some
Examination Boards or Universities award higher percentage of
marks to its students while some are more conservative in
evaluation of papers. As such, in a criteria for evaluation by the
Tripura Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Professor, Professor, Associate Professor in different
colleges under the State, the Government Department and TPSC
have consciously chosen to give a weightage criteria to the total
API marks in such recruitment exercise which is 15 in this case,
the whole purpose of personal interview would be defeated as
15% of even 15 marks could at best be 2.25. The answering
respondents also states that on a construction of the terms of the
advertisement, Table 3B at Annexure-A, the Corrigendum dated
12.04.2023 read with 13.10.2022, the formula devised by the
Education (Higher) Department and the TPSC for evaluation of
the API score, 85% of weightage is to be given whereas the
marks scored in the personal interview has to be added in
absolute terms. The above-mentioned formula adopted by the
Tripura Public Service Commission has been approved by this
Hon‟ble High Court by a Judgment & Order dated 04.08.2023
passed in WP(C) 966 of 2022"Dr. Sandeep Roy Sarkar Vs. The
State of Tripura".
14. Finally, the TPSC prayed for dismissal of the appeal and
urged for upholding the order of the Learned Single Judge.
15. In course of hearing of argument, Mr. P. Roy Barman,
Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single
Judge could not appreciate the subject matter of dispute properly as
because regarding 85% of API score, the appellant has got no dispute
but in respect of interview, the Selection Committee did not follow the
prescribed rule made by TPSC for which the interference of this Court is
required. He has also relied upon Annexure-A i.e. the criteria for short
listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in
Colleges and also the corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 issued by TPSC
(Annexure-2) and submitted that the Selection Committee of TPSC did
not adhere the rule framed by the TPSC itself and there action was
contrary to their policy for which the present appellant inspite of having
requisite marks was not selected for the post he applied for, rather,
inspite of obtaining lesser marks, the respondent No.5 was selected by
the Selection Committee of the TPSC most illegally but the Learned
Single Judge did not consider the same rather came to an observation
that there was no any procedural defects in the methodology adopted by
the Selection Committee and urged for allowing this appeal.
16. Per contra, Mr. Raju Datta, Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the TPSC-respondents submitted that the Selection Committee
of TPSC has rightly selected the respondent No.5 after observing all
formalities and there was no procedural defects. So, Learned Single
Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant.
17. In course of hearing of argument, Mr. Datta, Learned
Counsel has referred the Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant
Professor in Government (General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC
Regulation wherein it is prescribed that :
"ANNEXURE-B
Selection Procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in
Government (General) Degree Colleges, as per latest UGC
Regulation:
1. The overall selection procedure shall incorporate
transparent, objective and credible methodology of
analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants
based on the weightage given to the performance of the
different relevant parameters and his/her performance on
a grading system proforma, based on Appendix-II, Table
3B of the UGC Regulation, 2018 as amended.
2. The Academic score as specified in Annexure-II, Table
3B for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the
candidates (Maximum 5 candidates for each post notified)
for interview.
3. TPSC shall constitute Selection Committee and fix
qualifying cut off mark (if any) for interview as per UGC
Guideline 2018 as amended time to time.
4. As per State's New Recruitment Policy vide Notification
No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 05-06-2018, maximum of
10% weightage of total marks may be allocated for the
Interview/ Personality Test for selection purpose.
Accordingly 10 marks for Interview/Personality test is
fixed for the post of Asstt. Professor, Government
(General) Degree Colleges.
5. Merit list will be formed by TPSC aggregating the 90%
of marks obtained by the candidate as per API score and
interview Page 7 of 17 marks scored by the candidate and
following other instruction in the latest guideline.
6. Five members, including three subject experts, shall
constitute the quorum of the Selection Committee."
18. During the course of submission, Mr. Datta, Learned
Counsel has referred the corrigendum dated 13.10.2022 issued by the
TPSC which reads as under :
CORRIGENDUM
Ref: Commission's Advt. No.08/2022 dated 24.03.22 for
the post of Assistant Professor, Group-A Gazetted, Govt.
(General) Degree Colleges under the Education (Higher)
Department, Govt. of Tripura.
[
In pursuance of the notification dated No.F.1(435)-
DHE/Estt/ (G)/2019/226(04) dated 16-01-2021 the
Commission is pleased to issue corrigendum at para 5 of
Annexure 'A' as Screening API score followed by selection
process of interview with a weightage of 15% and API
score weightage of 85% in adherence of New Recruitment
Policy, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC
regulation, 2018. (enclo Notification).
Others terms and conditions will remain unchanged.
For further information please visit
www.tpsc.tripura.gov.in.
Sd/- (13.10.2022)
(Smt. K. Debbarma)
Under Secretary
Tripura Public Service Commission
19. Further, he has referred the notification dated 16.01.2021
issued by the Government of Tripura, Education (Higher) Department
which provides as under :
NOTIFICATION
The Recruitment Rule for the post of Assistant Professor,
Government (General) Degree Colleges has been notified
vide No.F.1(435)-DHE/Estt(G)/2019 dated 27.08.2020.
In partial modification of the said Notification
issued by this Department it is hereby notified that in the
Point no.5 i.e. Method of recruitments whether by direct
recruits or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and
percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various method
appeared in the Schedule of the Recruitment Rules of the
said notification, the following shall be substituted in place
of the existing.
"100% by direct recruitment through TPSC.
Screening API score followed by selection process of
interview with a weightage of 15% and API score
weightage of 85% in adherence of New Recruitment
Policy, 2018 and further modification in 2020 and UGC
Regulation, 2018. Selection process is enclosed as
Annexure-A".
This is issued with the concurrence of GA(P&T)
Department vide their U.O. No.190/GA(P&T)/21 dated
13.01.2021.
Rest of the contents of the said Notification and Schedule
shall remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor
Sd/-(16.01.2021)
Joint Secretary to the
Government of Tripura Education
(Higher) Department.
20. According to Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel, the weightage of
15% as mentioned in the notification may create some confusion but
actually, it should be 15 but the appellant-petitioner came to an
observation that that should be 15% and referring the merit list as stated
above, he further submitted that after tabulation it appeared that the
respondent No.5 secured more marks than the present appellant-
petitioner, so his name was recommended by the Selection Committee
and the appellant-petitioner secured lesser marks for which his case was
not recommended for selection and there was no ambiguity to that.
Finally, he has urged before this Court for upholding the judgment of the
Learned Single Judge.
21. Here in this case, after hearing submission of both the
parties, it appears as to whether the notification as relied upon by the
parties if read together would mean granting weightage of 85% to API
score and 15% in personal interview or not. The answer in this regard
lies in Clause-IV of Annexure-B wherein it is stated that the criteria for
short listing of candidates for interview to the post of Assistant Professor
in Colleges. Out of 100 marks, 85% marks is allotted to API score and
15% is left for personal interview. If we read the notification dated
16.01.2021 and 13.10.2021 along with Annexure-B it appears that there
would not be any doubt regarding allotting of 15 marks for interview
while in computing the API score out of total marks obtained under API
category, 85% weightage is only to be given. This formula has been
revised by the Education Department as per the States New Recruitment
policy vide notification dated 05.06.2018 followed by TPSC corrigendum
dated 13.10.2022 with the only difference that the interview marks
would only be 15 instead of 10 which has been also mentioned by the
TPSC in their counter affidavit. Furthermore, the formula for selection lies
within the domain of the administrative body or experts such as TPSC.
The Court does not have the jurisdiction to substitute a formula devised
by such an expert body to its own.
Further, in para Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 the above submission has
been clearly explained by TPSC. It was further submitted that there was
no malafides to that.
22. In order to support his case, Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel has
referred some citations which reads as under :
In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others versus Dr.
B.S. Mahajan and Others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305 the Hon'ble
apex Court in para-12 of that judgment has observed 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 emphasize 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."
In M.V. Thimmaiah and Others versus Union Public
Service Commission and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119 the
Hon'ble apex Court in para-21 of that judgment has observed as under :
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection
of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the
Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the
ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory
Rules. The Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to
examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee
like the Court of appeal. This discretion has been given to
the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court
of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is
the business of the Court to examine each candidate and
record its opinion. In this connection, learned senior
counsel for the appellants has taken us through various
following decisions of this Court :
(i) Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. :
AIR 2003 SC 3044
(ii) P.M.Bayas V. Union of India & Ors. :
(1993) 3 SCC 319
(iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. V. State of
Haryana & Ors. Etc. : (1985) 4 SCC 417
(iv) Ajay Hasia & Ors. V. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi & Ors. : (1981) 1 SCC 722
(v) Union Public Service Commission v.
S.Thiagarajan & Ors. : (2007)9 SCC 548
Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for
the private respondents invited our attention to the
following decisions of this Court.
(i) Dr. G.Sarana V. University of Lucknow &
Ors. : (1976) 3 SCC 583
(ii) Mrs. Kunda S.Kadam v. Dr.K.K.Soman &
Ors. : (1980) @ SCC 355
(iii) Ashok Nagar Welfare Association & Anr. V
R.K.Sharma & Ors. : (2002) 1 SCC 749
Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission invited
our attention to the following decisions of this Court.
(i) Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. :
(1973) 2 SCC 836
(ii) Lila Dhar V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
(1981) 4 SCC 159
(iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. V. State of
Haryana & Ors. Etc. : (1985) 4 SCC 417
(iv) R.S.Dass V. Union of India & Ors.etc. :
1986 (Supp) SCC 617
(v) State of U.P. V. Rafiquddin & Ors. Etc. :
1987 (Supp) SCC 401
(vi) Union Public Service Commission V.
Hiranyalal Dev & Ors. Etc. : (1988) 2 SCC 242
(vii) Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors. V. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : (1983) 3 SCC 241
(viii) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. V.
Dr.B.S.Mahajan & Ors. : (1990) 1 SCC 305
(ix) National Institute of Mental Health And
Neuro Sciences v. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors.
: 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481
(x) Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt.
K.C.Shukla & Ors. : (1993) 1 SCC 17
(xi) P.M.Bayas v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. :
(1993) 3 SCC 319
(xii) C.P.Kalra v. Air India through its
Managing Director, Bombay & Ors. : 1994
Supp. (1) SCC 454
(xiii) Anil Katiyar (Mrs.) v. Union of India &
Ors. : (1997) 1 SCC 280
(xiv) All India State Bank Officers‟ Federation
& Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. Etc. : (1997) 9
SCC 151
(xv) Union of India & Anr. V.
N.Chandrasekharan & Ors. : (1998) 3 SCC 694
(xvi) Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K &
Ors. : (2004) 6 SCC 786
(xvii) K.H.Siraj v, High Court of Kerala & Ors. :
(2006) 6 SCC 395"
In Manish Kumar Shahi versus State of Bihar and
Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 the Hon'ble apex Court in para-
16 of that judgment has observed as under :
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having
taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well
that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva
voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the
criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's
name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have
even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner
invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India only after he found that his name
does not figure in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly
disentitles him from questioning the selection and the
High Court did not commit any error by refusing to
entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection
may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of
J&K : (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P
:(2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal:(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v.
State of Assam:(2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A Nagamani v.
Indian Airlines:(2009) 5 SCC 515."
In Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others versus Anil Joshi
and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 the Hon'ble apex Court in
paras-18 & 24 of that judgment has observed as under :
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes
part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn
around and question the method of selection and its
outcome.
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above
noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken
part in the process of selection with full knowledge that
the recruitment was being made under the General Rules,
the respondents had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board
for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others versus State of
Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
344 in Civil Appeal Nos.2164-2172 of 2023 (@ Special Leave
Petition(C)Nos.20781-20789 of 2021) the Hon'ble apex Court in
paras-65, 66 & 69 of that judgment has observed as under :
"65. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface
our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally
avoid interfering in the selection process of public
employment, recognizing the importance of maintaining
the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The
Courts recognize that the process of selection involves a
high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not
appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for
that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading
on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the
decision of experts who form a part of a selection board.
The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a
selection process and results thereof, may be understood
on consideration of the following case law:
i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR
1990 SC 434, this Court clarified the scope of judicial
review of a selection process, in the following words:
"9...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 the 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 malafides
affecting the selection etc....."
ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health &
F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, this Court
observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection
process and the grounds on which the results thereof may
be interfered with:
"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is
made by an expert body like the Public Service
Commission which is also advised by experts
having technical experience and high academic
qualification in the field for which the selection is
to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere
with the opinion expressed by experts unless
allegations of mala fide are made and established.
It would be prudent and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions on such matters to the experts
who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts. If the expert body considers
suitability of a candidate for a specified post after
giving due consideration to all the relevant factors,
then the court should not ordinarily interfere with
such selection and evaluation......."
iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V.
Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2
SCC 119, in the following words:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the
selection of the candidates. Normally, the
recommendations of the Selection Committee
cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala
fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The
courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to
examine the recommendations of the Selection
Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion
has been given to the Selection Committee only
and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to
examine the selection of the candidates nor is the
business of the court to examine each candidate
and record its opinion...
xxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an
Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and
constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise.
This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be
clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection
Committee is not subject to appeal either before the
Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the
Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is
not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of
the candidates, one may be held to be very good and
another may be held to be good. If this type of
interference is permitted then it would virtually amount
that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting
as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority
over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be
clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court
in a number of decisions....."
iv) Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs.
Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117,
was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court
challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock
Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee
formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured
some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This
Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by
holding as under:
"5. ...the selection of members by the Expert
Committee had to be done on the basis of an
objective criteria taking into consideration
experience, professional qualifications and similar
related factors. In the present cases, we find that
certain percentage of marks were allocated for
each of these factors, namely, educational
qualifications, experience, financial background
and knowledge of the relevant laws and
procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the
total marks allocated only 20 per cent were
reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of
selection by the Expert Committee was not left
entirely to the sweet-will of the members of the
Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per
cent and having regard to the fact that the
members of the Expert Committee comprised of
two members nominated by the Central
Government it is difficult to accept the contention
that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary
fashion......"
66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is
that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising
the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a
selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is
within the expert domain of a Selection Committee,
subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven
allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules,
only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts
intervene.
69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part
in the selection process without any demur or protest,
cannot challenge the same after having been declared
unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and
reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply
because the result of the selection process is not palatable
to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of
interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the
process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in
these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of
law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria,
as they willingly took part in the selection process even
after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature
was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A
challenge was thrown against the same only after they
had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process,
at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been
entertained in light of the principle of waiver and
acquiescence."
In Dr. Nitin Jaglal Untwal versus Union of India and
Others reported in (2023) 6 AIR Bom R 365 the Hon'ble apex Court in
para-21 of that judgment has observed as under :
21. The entire process was in fact based on the interview
after the scrutiny was done by giving API score; in other
words, there was no written examination. In Lila Dhar v.
State of Rajasthan (1981)4 SCC 159 it has been observed
that Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985)4 SCC
"The competitive examination may be based
exclusively on written examination or it may be
based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a
mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government
to decide what kind of competitive examination
would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the
words of Chinnappa Reddy, J., „in the very nature
of things it would not be within the province or
even the competence of the court and the court
would not venture into such exclusive thickets to
discover ways out when the matters are more
appropriately left‟ to the wisdom of the experts. It
is not for the court lay down whether interview
test should be held at all or how many marks
should be allowed for the interview test. Of course
the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges
of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There
may be posts and appointments where the only
proper method of selection may be by viva voce
test. Even in the case of admission to higher
degree course, it may sometimes be necessary to
allow a fairly high percentage of marks for the viva
voce test. That is why rigid rules cannot be laid
down in these matters by courts. The expert bodies
are generally the best judges. The Government
aided by experts in the field may appropriately
decide to have a written examination followed by a
viva voce test."
Therefore, when the Committee for selection that
was enacted in the entire process was an Experts‟
Committee, then, now, the petitioner cannot have
objection for the selection even on the basis of
interview/viva voce."
In Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. and Another
versus Dr. Anita Puri and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 282 the
Hon'ble apex Court in para-9 of that judgment has observed as under :
"9. The question for consideration is whether such sub-
division of marks by the Commission on different facets
and awarding only 2 ½ Marks for higher qualification can
be said to be arbitrary? Admittedly, there is no statutory
rule or any guideline issued by the Government for the
Commission for the purpose of evaluation of merit of the
respective candidates. When the Public Service
Commission is required to select some candidates out of
number of applicants for certain posts, the sole authority
and discretion is vested with the Commission. The
Commission is required to evolve the relative fitness and
merit of the candidate and then select candidates in
accordance With such evaluation. If, for that purpose the
Commission prescribes marks for different facets and then
evaluates the merit, the process to evaluation cannot be
considered to be arbitrary unless marks allotted for a
particular facet is on the face of it excessive. Weightage to
be .given to different facets of a candidates as well .as to
the -viva voce test vary from service to service depending
upon the. requirement of the service itself: In course of
the arguments before as the learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 had submitted that the awarding of 20
marks for viva voce and 20 marks for General Knowledge
out of 100 marks must be held to be on the face of it
arbitrary giving a handle to the. Public Service Commission
to manipulate the selection and, therefore, the High Court
had rightly come to the conclusion that it was arbitrary.
We are unable to accept this contention. This Court in the
case of Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Majib Sehravardi and
Others Etc., [1981] 1 S.C.C. 722, while considering the
Case of selection, wherein 33% marks was the minimum
requirement by a candidate in viva voce for being selected,
held that it does not incur any consitutional infirmity. As
has been stated earlier the expert body has to evolve
some procedure for assessing the merit and suitability of
the appellants arid the same necessarily has to be made
only by allotting marks on different facets and them
awarding marks in respect of each facet of a candidate and
finaiiy evaluating his merit, it is too well settled that when
a Selection is made by an expert body like public Service
Commission which is also advised by experts having
technical experience and high academic qualification in
the field for which the selection is to be made, ihe courts
should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by
experts unless allegations of maln fide are made
established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are
more familiar with the problems they face than the courts.
If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a
specified post after giving due consideration to all the
relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily
interfere with such selection and evaluation. Thus,
considered we are not in a position to agree with the
conclusion of the High Court that the marks awarded by
the Commission was arbitrary or that the selection made
by the Commission was in any way vitiated."
23. From the principles of the aforesaid citations referred by Mr.
Datta, Learned Counsel for the TPSC-respondents and after going
through the relevant records and also after hearing both the sides, we do
not find any irregularity or illegality in the process of selection made by
the TPSC for which the present appellant preferred the writ petition and
in our considered view Learned Single Judge of this High Court after
hearing the parties and after taking into consideration all aspects has
rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for which we do not
find any scope to interfere with the judgment passed by Learned Single
Judge of this Court.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner
stands dismissed being devoid of merit and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, no order is passed as to costs.
Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Date: 2024.06.20 12:20:45 +05'30'
