PETITIONER:
KULDIP CHAND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF H.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/1997
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas J.S. Attri, Devendra Singh, Advs. for the appellant T. Sridharan and P.D. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents
ORDER The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No.4 challenged his appointment on the basis that he was academically more meritorious than the appellant and that the Selection Committee was not justified in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No.4 and quashed the selection of the appellant. The appellant has put the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.
The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in complete error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to respondent No.4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the field exclusively reserved for the selection committee. The finding that the appellant ‘manipulated’ his selection is not supported by any material and reason and is purely a conjectural finding. In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke. etc. etc. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc. (AIR 1990 SC 434), while dealing with some what identical question, this court opined:
"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 candidate. 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 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 has
constituted the Committee in due
compliance with the relevant
status. 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 an in comparative
merits of the candidates as
assessed by the Court, the High
Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction."
The above observation apply to the facts of present case with full force.
In the instant case the selection of the appellant was quashed by the Tribunal by finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant without assigning any reasons. The selection of the appellant was not quashed on any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the other issue involved in the case on merits in accordance with law and after hearing the parties. No costs.