Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 207 (CAL)

Ashok Kumar Jana v. District Inspector of Schools

1994-07-06

Satyabrata Sinha

body1994
JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent No, 8 and appoint him in the post of Assistant Teacher in Pan skura B. R High Schoo1. 2. The facts of the case which are in a narrow compass may be stated as follows. The petitioner is said to be holder of a degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) and BEd, whereas the respondent No.8 is said to be not holder of a degree of BEd, It is stated that the names of the respondent No, 8 and his sister were also sponsored by the Employment Exchange, who are the wards of Sri 'Pijush Pradhan, the Headmaster of the aforesaid Schoo1. 3. The petitioner has raised two questions in support of this application, Firstly, it was submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent No. 8 was the son of the Headmaster and the Headmaster being member of the Selection Committee, he was biased in his favour and thus the entire process of selection is vitiated. 4. It was next contended that keeping in view the fact that the respondent No, 8 was son of the Headmaster, in Practical Demonstration and oral interview, he was allotted 10 marks out of 10, whereas his sister was allotted 9 marks out of 10, The petitioner was allotted only 25 marks although he is the holder of B.Ed. degree, 5. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent No, 8, however, drew my attention to the various documents annexed to the Affidavit-in-opposition and submitted on the basis thereof that the Headmaster did not participate in the selection process nor did he take part in the meeting of the Selection Committee. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules provides for composition of Selection Committee consisting of members enumerated therein, 6. It is not disputed that the Headmaster did not take part in the interview, nor did he take part in the meeting of the Selection Committee. 7. There cannot be any doubt that the Selection Committee must consist of 5 members as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Headmaster did not take part in the interview, nor did he take part in the meeting of the Selection Committee. 7. There cannot be any doubt that the Selection Committee must consist of 5 members as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, it is also provided in Rule 5(q) of the said Rules that none of the members of the Selection Committee, who is related to the candidate to be interviewed, shall be included in the Selection Committee and certificate to that effect, shall be submitted to the District Inspector of Schools at the time of submission of the panel. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out anything to show as to whether the Rule contemplates a substitution of the Headmaster in the Selection Committee by any other person. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, is, therefore, not correct in contending that even -if the Headmaster did not take part in the process of Selection nor was he a member of the Selection Committee, by reason of Rule 5 aforementioned, the entire process of selection was vitiated as the Selection Committee did not consist of 5 members as laid down therein. 9. So far as the second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is now well-known that the Court in exerdse of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot consider the respective merits and demerits of the candidates. In the case of Do/pat Abasaheb Solunke vs. B. S. Mahajan, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: "It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court was 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 s-it in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that 'it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the dedsions 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. 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 materials 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." 10. Similarly, in (1990) 2 SCC 746 (Nilima Misra vs. Harinder Kallr Paintal & Ors.), the Supreme Court again held that if no bias or mala fide is alleged the recommendation of expert body like the Selection Committee should not be interfered with. 11. It is true, as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in this case maw fide and bias have been alleged. But keeping in view the fact that the Headmaster did not participate in the Selection Process, the allegation of bias must fail. However, as the panel has not yet been approved, the matter shall be considered by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Tamluk, who shall pass necessary orders in this regard. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of but without any order as to costs. 13. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the respective parties on usual undertaking. Writ petition disposed of. Affirmed m appeal in F.M.A.T. No. 2472 of 1994 on 25.11.1994.