Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 193 (GAU)

Amit Sharma v. Jyotishmoy Bora and Ors.

2002-05-08

I.A.ANSARI, R.S.MONGIA

body2002
R.S. MONGIA, CJ.— Heard Mr K.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In pursuance of an advertisement published by Pragjyotish College, Guwahati, for the post of Lecturer in Geography (non-sanctioned) many candidates had applied, including the appellant (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) and the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner). It may be observed here that the College is a private College receiving aid from the State Government, but the post in question was a non-sanctioned post. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 fulfilled the minimum requisite qualifications for the post. The Governing Body had constituted a Selection Committee for selecting a suitable candidate. After interview on 28.2.2000, the Selection Committee placed respondent No. 1 at SI. No. 1 in the merit list, whereas the appellant was placed at SI. No. 3 in the merit list. However, the Governing Body chose to appoint the appellant, who was placed at SI. No. 3 in the merit list. This led the present respondent No. 1 to file WP(C) No. 4070/ 2000. It may be observed here that the Motion Bench in the writ petition had passed an order on 31.7.2000 that if any appointment is to be made, the same would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, vide the judgment dated 12.4.2002, allowed the writ petition and set aside the appointment of the appellant. In the course of the judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that :- “In the instant case the Governing Body of the College had not submitted any affidavit.” It was further observed that the respondent No. 3 (now appellant) in his affidavit tried to justify that he is superior in merit to the writ petitioner. 3. Really speaking, it is the job of the Selection Committee to select the best person available who has fulfilled the requisite qualifications and unless there is something palpably wrong in the selection, the Governing Body cannot sit over the judgment of the expert Selection Committee to say that in fact another candidate was better than the one selected, or one is more meritorious than the other. The Selection Committee is supposed to have considered all the material which is available along with the applications of the candidates. 4. The candidate who was at SI. The Selection Committee is supposed to have considered all the material which is available along with the applications of the candidates. 4. The candidate who was at SI. No. 3, i.e., the appellant (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) who was sought to be appointed by the Governing Body, has filed the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that in fact an affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the College, which includes the Governing Body. We had sent for the original file of the writ petition, but we do not find on the file any affidavit that might have been filed on behalf of the College. May be, it was filed in the Registry, but it was the duty of the College authorities to bring this fact to the notice of the Court. 6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellant has shown us an unsigned photocopy of the affidavit that is supposed to have been filed by the College authorities. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:- “5. That in the present case, no fundamental or any legal right of the petitioner has been violated. However, the Governing Body of an Aided College is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State. It is not even an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Governing Body of the College in the present acted purely on private capacity and made an appointment to a post which is a non-sanctioned post and fund for the same is made available from the private sources of the College over which the Government has no control. In its wisdom, the Governing Body took a decision of appointing the private respondent after taking various relevant factors into consideration which had nexus with the suitability of the candidate. Hence, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right. 6. That the Special Body in its meeting held on 16.3.2000 resolved to approve the selection of private respondent for the non-sanctioned whole-time post in Geography because of his experience in GIS application, Computer Software and his vast experience in teaching. The Special Body, therefore, took relevant factors into consideration which had reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.” 7. The Special Body, therefore, took relevant factors into consideration which had reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.” 7. It will be seen from paragraph 6 (supra) that for preferring the appellant, the Governing Body has stated that it was because of his experience in GIS application, Computer Software and his vast experience in teaching that the Governing Body preferred him over the writ petitioner (now respondent No. 1). We cannot imagine that this fact was not taken into consideration by the Selection Committee while putting the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) at SI. No. 1 of the merit list. On the grounds mentioned in paragraph 6 (supra), we are not satisfied that this was sufficient material to thinker with the selection made by the expert Selection Committee. The Selection Committee is formed with persons who know the subject, whereas it. may not be so amongst the members of the Governing Body. Normally, the Governing Body should repose faith in its Selection Committee. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any case for interference. 9. Dismissed.