Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 432 (JK)

Arun Dev Singh v. State Of J. &K.

2009-08-28

HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN

body2009
1. Posts of lecturers in English were notified by the State Public Service Commission in the year 1997. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates applied but he has not been selected. He is aggrieved of his non-selection and the selection of private respondents. He submits that though the process of selection was conducted by the State Public Service Commission, the same was not in accordance with the rules as the selection was held on the basis of interview which was conducted by a committee, one of members of the committee was Dr. D.C. Saxena, Professor and HOD of English, Punjab University, Chandigarh but he was not suitable and mentally capable to assess the merit of the candidates as the Apex Court has made strictures against him and has convicted him for approaching the court 12 times in a PIL petition. The petitioner further submits that during the process of selection higher marks have been awarded to the private respondents and thus their selection has been managed and manipulated by the respondents. 2. Respondent No. 3 has filed objections. Heard. I have considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-4 of the petition wherein details of the observations of Apex Court in respect of Dr. D.C. Saxena have been given. It is stated by the petitioner as under- "In the instant case the expert member of the Board was not temporarily suitable and mentally capable of assessing the above said qualities of the interviewer which fact is established how he had been conducting himself with persons who used to come in contact with him throughout his service career he had been fighting litigation with the University authorities where he was employed and finally got himself convicted and sentenced when he started scandalizing the Judicial Institutions and made scurrilous nature attacks by leveling imputations of scandalous nature against the highest Judicial Authority of the Country, namely, the Honble Chief Justice of India, lastly, he had made it a habit to approach the Apex Court on frivolous matters by filing PIL, petitions which fact is established from the findings recorded by the Apex Court when he was convicted under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 2000. 2000. In default of such payment with three months, he had to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. This order of conviction and sentence is reported in the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) (5) SCC 216. It may be noted that the said expert before his conviction had already approached the Honble Supreme Court, 12 times in PIL petitions and when became outrageous in showing contumacious conduct towards the courts, he met his nemesis." 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has secured more than 55% marks in M.A. Examination and has been engaged as stop-gap lecturer w.e.f. 01.02.1998 to 10.06.1998 and then from 2.9.1998, as such he has gained experience for the post but this aspect has not been considered by the Interview Board at all and the selection was made only on higher merit of the candidates in the interview where excessive marks have been awarded to the selected candidates. 5. On consideration of the matter, I find no merit in the present petition. The petitioner has participated in the process of selection. He has subjected himself to the assessment done by the selection committee as such he cannot turn around and challenge the capacity and capability of any of the members of the committee, particularly when the members are not arrayed as parties-respondents in the case. 6. This court cannot look into the correctness or otherwise of the process of interview as undertaken by the selection committee. The court cannot sit as a court of appeal on the assessment made by the selection committee of the candidates who appeared before it. It is now well settled that the courts will not itself assess the relative merit of the candidates interviewed by the selection committee particularly when the assessment has been made by a committee consisting of experts and members of the body like State Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the court should be slow to interfere with the evaluation made by the selection committee. Judicial review in such cases is limited to overseeing whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or appointed rule. No such contravention is alleged. 7. In these circumstances I do not find any ground muchless a sufficient ground is made out in the present petition. Petition dismissed.