Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 60 (JHR)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-13

D.K.SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1051 of 2002, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, who is the appellant in L.P.A N o.534/2002, although was allowed, the relief specifically sought by him, seeking appointment on the post of Principal, was not granted by the learned Single Judge, as the respondent authorities were merely permitted to fill up the post of Principal in K.S.G.M College on regular basis. However, in the interest of administrative exigency, the senior most teacher of the College was permitted to be made Professor In-charge to function and discharge the duties of Principal. 2. The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, appellant in L.P.A No.534/2002 had filed the writ petition against the decision dated 6.11.2000 taken by the Governing Body of K.S.G.M College, Nirsa, whereby and whereunder the respondent no.7 in the writ petition, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, had been appointed on the post of Principal of K.S.G.M College and the Governing Body of the College had appointed him (respondent no.7) in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission, as it then existed. The petitioner-appellant, Rajendra Kumar, had assailed the decision appointing respondent no.7 on the post of Principal of K.S.G.M College essentially on the plea that he was not having the requisite 12 years of teaching experience as per the advertisement on a sanctioned post of Lecturer, which was the requirement even as per the advertisement, nor he was possessing 1st Class post-graduate degree, which was the requirement as per the guidelines of All India Council for Technical Education. 3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition on the averment that he was a better qualified person than the respondent no.7, as he was possessing 1st Class post-graduate degree in Commerce and was also having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post of Lecturer, which were the essential qualifications in terms of the advertisement. 3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition on the averment that he was a better qualified person than the respondent no.7, as he was possessing 1st Class post-graduate degree in Commerce and was also having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post of Lecturer, which were the essential qualifications in terms of the advertisement. According to his contention, he was wrongly denied appointment of Principal in the College by the Selection Committee of the Bihar College Service Commission and the Bihar College Service Commission indulged in illegality and irregularity by recommending the name of respondent no.7 for appointment on the post of Principal, who was neither having the requisite teaching experience, as per the petitioner, nor possessed better qualification than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar. 4. The learned Single Judge entered into a scrutiny of the respective qualifications of the contesting parties, viz the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar and the respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, and was finally pleased to hold that neither the respondent no.7 was having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years, nor the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, was possessing the teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post and therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the prayer of the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, only to the extent by which the appointment of respondent no.7 was quashed and set aside and an interim arrangement was ordered to be adopted by the Governing Body of the College by deputing the senior most teacher as the Professor In-charge to discharge the duties of the Principal of the College. This is how, these two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred – one by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar and the other by the respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, as both are aggrieved against the impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. This is how, these two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred – one by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar and the other by the respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, as both are aggrieved against the impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. The appellant, Rajendra Kumar, in L.P.A No.534/2002 is aggrieved of the fact that although the appointment of respondent no.7 has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, further direction for granting appointment to the petitioner by holding him better suited for the post of Principal was not accepted and it was wrongly held by the learned Single Judge that he did not have the requisite teaching experience of 12 years by drawing an inference from the fact that after the retirement of two Professors in the Department of History, no appointment of Lecturer in the Department of History had been made by the concerned authority, from which an erroneous inference was drawn that the petitioner was not having the requisite teaching experience. 6. The counsel for the petitioner-appellant, Rajendra Kumar, submitted that the petitioner-appellant, Rajendra Kumar, was never a Lecturer in the Department of History and all-through he was Lecturer in the Department of Commerce and therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge from the fact that no Lecturer had been appointed in the Department of History was clearly contrary to the established fact. The counsel for the appellant, Rajendra Kumar, also submitted that even if it were to be held that the respondent no.7 was not having the required teaching experience, in view of the elaboration made by the counsel for the respondent no.7 that the respondent no.7 had been appointed as Lecturer in the Department of History in the year 1980 and had applied for the post of Principal in the year 1998, he had already acquired 18 years of teaching experience by that time and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to respondent no.7 was also erroneous and that was the plea taken by the counsel for the respondent no.7 in both the Letters Patent Appeals – one of which has been filed by Rajendra Kumar and the other which has been filed by Dr.M.C.P Shaw, assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. 7. Confronted with the effect of the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the respondent no.7, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant, Rajendra Kumar, that even if it were to be accepted that the respondent no.7 was possessing the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post, he was less qualified than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, as the petitioner was possessing 1st class post-graduate degree in Commerce, whereas respondent no.7 was possessing only a 2nd class degree in post-graduation and therefore, the Commission made a subjective assessment of the qualification of the contesting parties. 8. This part of the argument again was dispelled by the counsel for the respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A No.535/2002, as it was submitted that in the light of the advertisement, the Selection Committee was fully justified in granting the appointment to respondent no.7 as the essential qualifications indicated in the advertisement were that the applicant should possess minimum 12 year of teaching experience on a sanctioned post and he should be possessing 1st class post-graduate degree or high 2nd class post-graduate degree with consistent academic records which were to be counted from class ten upto the postgraduation level. The counsel for the respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A No.535/2002, further explained that in view of the requirements indicated in the advertisement, the Selection Committee was fully justified in taking an overall view of the academic excellence of the respondent no.7, who was possessing 1st division in Matriculation, 2nd division in Intermediate (I.A), Graduation and postgraduation, whereas the petitioner had secured 3rd division in Matriculation, Intermediate (I.Com.) and only in post-graduation level, he secured 1st class, which could hardly be a reason weighty enough to disqualify him (respondent no.7) from being appointed on the post of Principal, as the Selection Committee was fully justified in assessing the overall record of the contesting applicants. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 also relied upon an authority reported in 2000(1) PLJR 319 (Rajeev Ranan & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) to contend that the selection made by a Selection Committee is not fit to be reassessed by a court of law, when there is no apparent justification for doing the same. He went to the extent of contending that as per that judgment, the court of law should never ever interfere with the selection which has been made by the Selection Committee. 10. He went to the extent of contending that as per that judgment, the court of law should never ever interfere with the selection which has been made by the Selection Committee. 10. While we do not accept the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A No.535/2002, that the Court, under no circumstance, should question the decision of the Selection Committee, we nevertheless accept the position that the selection made by a Committee of experts should normally not be interfered by a court of law, unless it results in gross miscarriage of justice to the affected party and the attending facts and circumstance compel the Court to interfere. The case at hand does not fall within the said bracket and therefore, we find force in the argument of the counsel for the respondent no.7, appellant of L.P.A No.535/2002, that the respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, over-all was better qualified than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar. 11. In fact, the learned Single Judge had not entered into all those aspects and had merely gone into the scrutiny as to whether the contesting parties were having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post or not. While doing so, the learned Single Judge had been pleased to draw an erroneous inference on the sole ground that no appointment had been made after the retirement of two teachers in the Department of History, which is factually incorrect and would be reflected from the discussions recorded hereinbefore. The respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, was appointed as a Lecturer on a sanctioned post in the year 1980 and as already stated, he had already acquired 18 years of teaching experience on the date of his application, although only 12 years of teaching experience was required for the post. In so far as the academic qualification is concerned, we have noticed, as indicated hereinbefore, that his academic performance was better than that of the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, as the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, although was having 1st class post-graduate degree, his (petitioner’s) track record right from class ten was not upto the mark. In that view of the matter, the Selection Committee thought it appropriate that an over-all consideration of the academic excellence was more suited for the post and then granted appointment. In that view of the matter, the Selection Committee thought it appropriate that an over-all consideration of the academic excellence was more suited for the post and then granted appointment. It would be legally impermissible for the Court to substitute its own opinion over the decision taken by the Selection Committee, which recommended in favour of respondent no.7 for the post of Principal. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Bihar College Service Commission and therefore, we dismiss L.P.A No.534/2002 preferred by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar. 13. In so far as L.P.A No.535/2002 preferred by respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, is concerned, it is fit to be allowed for the reasons recorded hereinbefore. In fact, it was brought to the notice that by virtue of an interim order, respondent no.7 has been continuing on the post of Principal and has by now completed several years on the post of Principal and his selection having been found to be legal and proper, we see no justification to interfere with his continuance on the post of Principal. The direction of the learned Single Judge permitting the senior most teacher of the College as Professor In-charge to discharge the duties of Principal stands quashed and set aside and his appointment on the post of Principal shall continue in terms of the recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission, which has been accepted by the Governing Body of K.S.G.M College. Accordingly, L.P.A No.535/2002 stands allowed but under the circumstance without any order as to costs.