Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 439 (DEL)

SIDDHANT K. MISHRA v. UNIVERAITY OF DELHI

1996-05-13

J.K.MEHRA

body1996
J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) BY the present petition, the petitioner who was an adhoc Lecturer in Sri Aurobiodo College (Evening),has impugned the selection of Lecturer of Applied Psychology, a sutject which he has been teaching as adhoc Lecturer since October, 1993 at the same college. His grievance is that there were three adhot Lecturers, two of whom have been regularised on being selected by the Selection. Committee, which had called 45 persons including the said three adhoc Lecturers for interview. The petitioner was not selected and in preference to him, one Dr. Mahesh K. Darolia was selected. The main ground of attack Is that the officiating Principal, respondent No. 2 was not well disposed towards the petitioner because the petitiener s real brother one Mr. R. K. Mishra,who impleaded as respondent No. 6, is the President of the respondent College Staff Association and the said Association had passed a resolution, under the leadership of said briother of the petitioner, condemming the existing of ficiating Principal. Nothing has been pointed out wherefrom one could conclude that there existed any kind of animosity between the petitioner and the officiating Principal. The contention gets further diluted in the light of the fact that although the person who piloted the staff Association resolution, and who should have been a target of the officiating Principal, has suffered no prejudice so far. Furthermore, the Selection Committee could not be said to be dominated by the officiating Principal because the persons who evaluated the candidates included two experts, namely Ms. Dr. Paramjit Kaur Dhillon, Professor in the Department of Psychology and an expert on the panel of the University in the subject of Psychology and Mr. D. M. Saxena, Professor in the Department of Zoology of University of Delhi, who is nominee/representative of the University on the Governing Body of the college. I have been informed that in the event of any difference of the opinion among the members of Selection Committee, the opinion of the specialist in the subject prevails. In the present case, the candidates were selected by a unanimous verdict of the Selection Committee. The law on the subject of powers of the Court to interfere with selection is well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a number of its judgements, which are REFERRED TO to hereafter. In the present case, the candidates were selected by a unanimous verdict of the Selection Committee. The law on the subject of powers of the Court to interfere with selection is well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a number of its judgements, which are REFERRED TO to hereafter. ( 2 ) I had also, in the case of P. K. Sharma Vs. Moti Lal Nehru College (Eve.) and Ors. in C. W. P. No. 789 of 1995 on April 25, 1996 held that if a person participates in the selection process with full knowledge of the constitution of the Selection Committee and without any protest or demur against the constitution of the Selection Committee, could not fault such selection after he failed to be selected. The petitioner has REFERRED TO to a number of authorities with a view to butteress his argument that this Court had power to interfere with the selection. He has relied upon the case of Neelima Misra. Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Ors. , reported as AIR 1990 SC 1402 (1412) wherein in para-32, the Hon ble Supreme Court obsereved as under:- "when appointments based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which Chancellor has acted. " ( 3 ) NO contravention of any statutory or binding rules or ordinance has been brought to my notice in this case. He has REFERRED TO to the decision in Ishwar Chandra Vs. Satyanarain Sinha and Ors. , reported as AIR 1972 SC 1812 . In this case, even though one of the three members of the Selection Committee was unable to attend the meeting, the Supreme Court has upheld the selection. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has further REFERRED TO *to the decisions in the cases of Unni Krishnan, J. P. and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , reported as AIR 1993 SC 2178 and Smt. Meneka Ganhi Vs. Union of India and Anr. , reported as AIR 1978 SC 597 . The said decisions, to my mind, have no application to the facts of the present case. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , reported as AIR 1993 SC 2178 and Smt. Meneka Ganhi Vs. Union of India and Anr. , reported as AIR 1978 SC 597 . The said decisions, to my mind, have no application to the facts of the present case. These cases arose in different contexts and had no application to the facts of a case of present nature. ( 5 ) THE Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan, reported as AIR 1990 SC 434 in para 9 has laid down as under:- "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 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 paramaterial 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. " ( 6 ) ANOTHER argument which was raised by Dr. Surat Singh at the Bar was that the regular Principal was not a member of the Selection Committee and that was a major irregularity. It has been clarified by counsel for the College as also by counsel for the University that in the case of this college, the evening college is being supervised and managed by the officiating Principal (Evening) and that the Principal has no Administrative or other control over the affairs of the evening college and that for all official purposes, the officiating Principal is performing the work of the Principal qua the affairs of evening college. In the light of this clarification, I do not find any force in this argument also. ( 7 ) IN the case of Om Prakash Vs. Akhilesh Kumar, reported as AIR 1986 SC 1043 , the Hon bic Supreme Court in para 23 of its judgement, had observed as under:- "moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. " ( 8 ) I consider that the ratio of the above decision is applicable to the case of the present petitioner. A Single Bench, of this Court in K. S. Jawatkar Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, C. W. P. No. 573 of 1975 had dealt with a situation where persons who were not members of the Selection Committee were present as observers and after considering law on the subject, the Court came to the conclusion that the selection made by the Selection Committee would not be vitiated. ( 9 ) THE only other case of A-K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India, reported as AIR 1970 SC 150 where the Hon ble Supreme Court had set aside the election holding that it stood vitiated for violation of the rules of natural justice, was a case where one of the selectors being member of the Selection Board was himself a candidate for the selection and it was in these circumstances that the selection was faulted and set aside. I do not find any such situation arising in the present case. I do not find any such situation arising in the present case. ( 10 ) IN the light of the above legal position and the fact that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and keeping in view the position that the petitioner had appeared for interview before the Selection Committee without any demur or protest or reservation inspite of his knowledge of the alleged, bias of the officiating Principal on account of the petitioner s brother having piloted the resolution against the officiating Principal and also the fact that the selection of the three candidates was unanimous, I find no force in the contentions and arguments of the petitioner. It is more so in the light of the fact that the petitioner having participated of his civil free will without any protest, demur or reservation in the interview, has sought to challenge the selection only after coming to know that he has not been selected. ( 11 ) THE result of the above discussion is that this petition is without any merit and fails and is dismissed. The interim order passed on 28. 02. 1996 stands vacated. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.