Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 54 (CAL)

Kiran Chandra Das v. Jadavpur University

2015-01-27

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2015
ORDER : W.P.C.R. 10052 (W) of 2005 has arisen for violation of the order passed in the writ petition, being W.P. 1509 (W) for of 2005, hence W.P.C.R. 10052 (W) of 2005 does not survive for consideration. 2. The writ petitioner approached this Court complaining abuse of power by the majority members of the selection committee so far as the appointment to the post of Lecturer of Mathematics at Jadavpur University by empanelling candidates with less qualifications without giving any reasons or explanations. In other words according to them less qualified and sub-standard candidates were selected and/or appointed by majority members of the selection committee, therefore, he seeks following reliefs :- "a. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing The Executive Council, Jadavpur University to cancel, rescind, revoke or withdraw the appointment of respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 made to the post of Lecturer of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, from the panel prepared by the majority members of the Selection Committee for appointment to the posts of Lecturer of Mathematics, Jadavpur University. b. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing The Executive Council, Jadavpur University to cancel, rescind, withdraw, revoke the panel formed by the majority members of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Lecturer of Mathematics. c. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing The Executive Council, Jadavpur University to appoint the most academically qualified candidates from the panel prepared by the Minority members of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Lecturer Mathematics, Jadavpur University after giving the due approval to such panel. d. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondent authorities to certify and produce before this Honble Court all documents and/or papers relating to the empanelment of candidates for appointment to the posts of Lecturer of Mathematics so that conscionable Justice may be done by cancelling the appointments of respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 and quashing the panel prepared by the Majority Members of the Selection Committee for appointment to the posts of Lecturer of Mathematics approved by the Executive Council and furthermore by directing the Executive Council to appoint the most academically qualifying candidates to the posts of Lecturer of Mathematics, Jadavpur University from the panel prepared by the minority members of the Selection Committee. e. Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) above. e. Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) above. f. An order of injunction restraining the Department of higher Education, Government of West Bengal not to issue any funds towards the payment of salaries of the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 appointed to the post of Lecturer of Mathematics, Jadavpur University and the University Grant Commission from disbursing any grant from its funds towards maintenance and development of Jadavpur University till disposal of the instant application. g. Interim order in terms of prayer (f) above. h. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (g) above." 3. In brief the facts of the present case have to be referred in order to understand the background in which the petitioner has come before this Court. Admittedly the petitioner was the Head of the Department of Mathematics of Jadavpur University and was a member of the selection committee for the appointment of Lecturer in the faculty of the Mathematics of the said University. In the year 2004 an advertisement was published inviting applications from the deserving candidates so far as five posts of Lecturers of Mathematics in the above University. The requirement to apply for the said post was notified as per notification dated August 25, 2004 which is as under :- "Employment Notification No. A2/C/7/2004 dated 25th Aug, 2004. a. Good academic record with at least 55% marks, 50% for SC/ST and Ph. D. degree holders who have obtained their Masters degree prior to September 19, 1991 or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. b. Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualifications, should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC/CSIR or a similar test, accredited by the UGC. Candidates who have completed M. Phil degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph. D. thesis in this concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET Examination, failing which their appointment shall stand cancelled. The minimum marks at the P.G. Level may be relaxed from 55% to 50% for appointment as Lecturer to the candidates who have passed the JRF examination conducted by UGC/CSIR, prior to 1989" 4. It is not in dispute that the panel for selection of the candidates consisted of nine members and the petitioner was one of them. The minimum marks at the P.G. Level may be relaxed from 55% to 50% for appointment as Lecturer to the candidates who have passed the JRF examination conducted by UGC/CSIR, prior to 1989" 4. It is not in dispute that the panel for selection of the candidates consisted of nine members and the petitioner was one of them. The Registrar being a non-voting member of the panel does not have any say in the empanelment of candidates. In response to the above notification several candidates applied and the interviews were held between the 2nd November to 5th November 2004. After the interviews were over, there were divergent views between the majority panel consisting of four members and minority panel consisting of three members of the selection committee. 5. The writ petitioner belongs to minority selection committee. The petitioner, subsequent to completion of selection process, resigned from the post of Head of the Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University and then initiated this public interest litigation contending that the candidates empanelled and selected by the majority members were less meritorious than the candidates empanelled and selected by the minority members. It is also contended that two of the candidates approved by the majority members had not cleared NET (National Eligibility Test). 6. According to the petitioner, candidate No. 8 apart from not passing of NET could complete her Ph. D. on June 16, 2004 and on verification it was found that thesis was submitted after 2007 which is quite contrary to the requirement in the advertisement. So far as the candidate No. 3, Dr. Bibhas Chandra Giri, in the panel prepared by the majority members of the selection committee for the post of Reader of Mathematics was the first empanelled candidate for post of Lecturer. According to him, there were large number of other interviewed candidates who were more eligible for empanelment by the majority members of the selection committee. 7. When the two panels, that is majority and minority selection committee, were placed before the Executive Council for final approval, the Executive Council disapproved the empanelment of Rakhi Bhattacharyya alone though the Executive Council ought to have dis-approved the entire list approved by the majority members of the selection committee were less qualified than the selected candidates by the minority group. With these averments he has come up before this Court seeking above reliefs. 8. With these averments he has come up before this Court seeking above reliefs. 8. As against this, first respondent University had placed on record objection firstly raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on locus standi of the writ petitioner as one of the members of the selection committee. They proceed to indicate how the selection committee was formed and what was the composition of the selection committee and the procedure. According to the respondent University, the candidates selected or approved by the majority members of the committee were better qualified with good academic credentials when compared to the candidates who were approved by the minority member of the committee. They have clearly mentioned the achievements or the academic credentials of each of the candidates. They have also pointed out what exactly was deficit so far as the candidates empanelled by the minority members of the committee with all the details. According to respondent University, the present public interest litigation is not at all maintainable as the petitioner having participated in the selection process being a member of the minority group of the selection committee has approached this Court only to satisfy his ego rather than fighting the litigation on merits. Even otherwise, in service matters, according to the University except in the matter writ of quo warranto no other is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. So far as the stand of the respondent UGC, they have explained how the selection committee is composed and the procedure for such selection. At paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition they opine that the qualification of good academic records is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the University, as the UGC has nothing to do with the same. So far as the stand of the other private respondents, they support the stand or the defence taken by the respondent University. 10. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents have referred to several judgments and we have gone through the same. 11. The first and foremost controversy that would fall for our consideration is whether the present writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation in service matter, is maintainable and whether the matter requires issuance of writ of quo warranto. 12. 11. The first and foremost controversy that would fall for our consideration is whether the present writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation in service matter, is maintainable and whether the matter requires issuance of writ of quo warranto. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the two decisions on this point and refers to the cases of Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1 and in the case of State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok and ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 1 . 13. During the course of argument in the case of Centre for PIL (supra) relevant controversy that came up for consideration was whether the procedure of issuance of writ of quo warranto confers jurisdiction on authority and judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointment to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions. While referring to the arguments of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel at para 50 it is said that a writ of quo warranto applies in a case when a person usurps an office and the allegation is that he has no title to it or a legal authority to hold it. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel argued that in order to issue a writ of quo warranto there must be a clear infringement of law. 14. At paragraph 52 it is clearly mentioned that apart from seeking a writ of quo warranto a declaratory relief was also sought. This was a case where the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas was challenged as contravening the provisions of 2003 Act. P.J. Thomas was to be selected as one of the members of the Central Vigilance Commission. Though he had necessary qualifications to be considered for the said post because of a cloud existed in the reputation of the candidate on account of a criminal case pending against him, the public interest litigation came to be filed. While distinguishing between judicial review and merit review Their Lordships at paragraph 63 and 64 while referring to Ashok Kumar Yadav and R.K. Jain case stated as under :- "63. As stated above, we need to keep in mind the difference between judicial review and merit review. While distinguishing between judicial review and merit review Their Lordships at paragraph 63 and 64 while referring to Ashok Kumar Yadav and R.K. Jain case stated as under :- "63. As stated above, we need to keep in mind the difference between judicial review and merit review. As stated above, in this case the judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the decision-making process undertaken by the HPC in terms of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act. If one carefully examines the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav case the facts indicate that the High Court had sat in appeal over the personal integrity of the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in support of the collateral attack on the selections made by the State Public Service Commission. In that case, the High Court had failed to keep in mind the difference between judicial and merit review. Further, this Court found that the appointments of the Chairperson and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission were in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In that case, there was no issue as to the legality of the decision-making process. On the contrary the last sentence of para 9 supports our above reasoning when it says that it is always open to the Court to set aside the decision (selection) of the Haryana Public Service Commission if such decision is vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations if such selection is made in breach of the statute or the rules. 64. Even in R.K. Jain case, this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction. We do not wish to multiply the authorities on this point." 15. We reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction. We do not wish to multiply the authorities on this point." 15. Ultimately Their Lordships opined that the recommendation of High Power Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner and the proviso to Section 41 of the Act of 2003 as non est in law and consequently the impugned appointment of P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner was quashed because High Power Committee never took into consideration the pendency of the criminal case doubting the reputation of a candidate while recommending his name as the candidate for the selection as member of the Central Vigilance Commission. 16. Their Lordships opined that appointment to the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner must satisfy not only the eligibility criteria of a candidate but also the decision making process of the recommendation. Since the decision making process had desisted that if they failed to look into the materials having nexus to the object and purpose of the act by taking into account irrelevant circumstances, the decision would stand vitiated on the ground of arbitrariness. They further opined that when the institution of integrity is the question and touchstone of the public interest which has not been taken into consideration by the High Power Committee and in such case High Power Committee may not insist upon proof. Since the High Power Committee failed to take note of the pending criminal proceeding under Section 32 read with Section 138 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, of Indian Penal Code, failure on the part of High Power Committee to consider this relevant material would go to the root of the matter. Therefore, they quashed the appointment. 17. So far as (2013) 5 SCC 1 it was pertinent to note that qualification and/or requirement for appointment of constitutional post as the Chairman of Public Service Commission was vital. Therefore, they quashed the appointment. 17. So far as (2013) 5 SCC 1 it was pertinent to note that qualification and/or requirement for appointment of constitutional post as the Chairman of Public Service Commission was vital. Since, in this case when public interest litigation came to be filed it was noticed that no qualification as such was indicated so far as the post of Chairman of Public Service Commission, therefore, when integrity became the controversy Their Lordships opined that the very post of the Chairman of Public Service Commission being a constitutional post do not fall under the realm of service matter since the very competence and integrity as Chairman of a Public Service Commission would require to inspire confidence in the minds public about the objective and impartiality of the selection to be made by the Public Service Commission. In such case, if integrity of such candidate is challenged it had to be intervened by the judicial review. This is the opinion of the Apex Court. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that at paragraph 62 of the said judgment while discussing the public interest petition in respect of service matters Their Lordships opined that the Chairperson of a Public Service Commission holds a constitutional position and not a statutory post and at paragraph 79 they further opined that it is not possible to say that the Chairperson of a Public Service Commission does not occupy a constitutional post or constitutional position. To describe appointment of a constitutional post generically or even specifically as a service matter would be most inappropriate to say the least. 18. While coming to the facts of the present case on verifying the writ petition and also affidavit-in-opposition specially with regard to the document filed along with affidavit-in-opposition at pages 35 Annexure 1 refers to constitution of members of the Selection Committee with their designation as well. The petitioner is described as the Head of Mathematics Department of Jadavpur University. Out of the total number of 300 candidates 182 candidates were called for the interview and 122 candidates were interviewed as, 60 candidates were absent. So far as the two posts reserved for Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste none was found suitable. 19. The petitioner is described as the Head of Mathematics Department of Jadavpur University. Out of the total number of 300 candidates 182 candidates were called for the interview and 122 candidates were interviewed as, 60 candidates were absent. So far as the two posts reserved for Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste none was found suitable. 19. So far as five posts of general candidates, the recommendation of the majority members of the Selection Committee consists of Professor S. Pal, Dean of Science; Professor S. Bose, Vice Chancellors nominee (the respondent No. 4 herein); Professor S. Roy Chowdhury, Executive Councils Nominee (the Respondent No. 5 herein) and Professor S.K. Karanjai, Executive Councils Nominee (the Respondent No. 6 herein). The three minority members of the Selection Committee consisted of Professor J. Das, Chancellors nominee, Professor S. Ganguly and Professor K.C. Das, the present petitioner. The panel recommended by both the committees for one common candidate that is Mr. Kallol Pal. So far as all other names they are different. The selected candidates recommended by the majority members of the Selection Committee and that prepared by the Minority members which reads as under :- Majority's Panel Minority's Panel Sl. No. Name of Candidate Name of Candidate 1 Dr. Abhijit Lahiri Madhyamik-56.7%, 2nd Divn. HS-51.1% 2nd Divn. B.Sc. (Math), C.U.-46.8% IInd Class M.Sc.(Math)-J.U.-63.6% 1st Class Ph.D., J.U.-1998 Sandip Jana Madhyamik-86%, 1st Divn. HS-84.3%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math), -C.U.79.75%,I Ist Class Ist M.Sc.(Pure Math)-C.U. 79.5% 1st Class Ist NET – 2000 2. Dr. Kallol Pal (Common candidate) Madhyamik-72%, 1st Divn. HS-62.5%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math) 84.66% 1st Class Ist M.Sc.(Math), J.U., 88.45% 1st Class Ist (Gold Medallist) NET-UGS/CSIR-1993 Ph.D. - J.U. 1999 Anjan Kumar Bhuniya Madhyamik-68.33%, 1st Divn. HS-70.5%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math)-C.U. 79.62% 1st Class Ist M.Sc.(Pure Math), C.U. 85%, 1st Class Ist NET-CSIR-1999 3. Dr. Bibhas Chandra Giri Madhyamik - 77.3%, 1st Divn. HS-60.2%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math) -V.U.-57.9% IInd Class M.Sc. (Applied Math)-J.U., 73.3%, Ist Class Ph.D. J.U.-1998 Dr. Kallol Pal (Common candidate) Madhyamik-72%, 1st Divn. HS-62.5%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math)84.66% 1st Class Ist M.Sc. (Math)-J.U., 88.45% Ist Class 1st (Gold Medallist) NET-UGS/CSIR-1993 Ph.D. - J.U. 1999 4. Smt. Alaka Das Madhyamik - 72%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math)- C.U. 66% 1st Class M.Sc. (Applied Math)-C.U. 69.6%, Ist Class NET(L.S.)-1997, SLET-1997 Ph.D. Thesis submitted Ujjal Debnath Madhyamik - 82%, 1st Divn. HS-79.2%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math) J.U.-81.9% 1st Class 1st M.Sc. (Applied Math)- J.U. 79.6%. (Math)-J.U., 88.45% Ist Class 1st (Gold Medallist) NET-UGS/CSIR-1993 Ph.D. - J.U. 1999 4. Smt. Alaka Das Madhyamik - 72%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math)- C.U. 66% 1st Class M.Sc. (Applied Math)-C.U. 69.6%, Ist Class NET(L.S.)-1997, SLET-1997 Ph.D. Thesis submitted Ujjal Debnath Madhyamik - 82%, 1st Divn. HS-79.2%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math) J.U.-81.9% 1st Class 1st M.Sc. (Applied Math)- J.U. 79.6%. Ist Class Ist NET-CSIR-2001 Ph.D. submitted 5. Sri Arindam Bhattacharya Madhyamik-71.78%, 1st Divn. HS-65.6%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math)-C.U.-52.25% IInd Class M.Sc.(Pure Math)-C.U. 62.8% 1st Class M.Phil, C.U. Pure Math 1993 76.80% Ph. D. Thesis submitted Madumita Das Gupta Madhyamik-78%, 1st Divn. HS-78%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.Jabbalpur Univ. 72.5% 1st Class Ist M.Sc. - J.U. - 83% 1st Class Ist NET - 1986 Ph.D. J.U. 1996 6. Arun Kumar Jalan Madhyamik-61.11% , 1st Divn. HS-50.6%, 2nd Divn. B.Sc. (Math)-B.U.-44.62% IInd Class M.Sc. (Appl. Math)-J.U. II Class Ph.D. J.U. – 2000 Sujata De (Ghosh) Madhyamik-81.2%,1st Divn HS-72.3%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math)- C.U.62.1% Ist Class M.Sc. (Pure Math)-C.U. 57.73%, 80.1%, Ist Class NET-LS-2000 7. Dr. Mulupuri Shanthi SSC-AP-63.5%. 1st Divn. HS-Maharashtra Board 68.5%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Stat)-Bombay Univ. 64.9%, Ist Class M.Sc.(Math)-IIT Bombay 56.1%, IInd Class NET-CSIR-1985 M.Phil, Bombay Univ. 1988 Ph.D. Bombay Univ. 1991 Atasi Debray(Mitra) Madhyamik-70.9%, 1st Divn. HS-68.6%, 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math)-C.U. 57.4% IInd Class M.Sc. (Pure Math)-C.U. 67.9%, Ist Class Ist NET-1995, GATE 1994 Ph.D. - C.U. - 2000 8. Rakhi Bhattacharyya Madhyamik-71.3%, 1st Divn. HS-70.1%, 1st Divn. B.Sc. (Math) - C.U. 66.6%, Ist Class M.Sc.(Applied Math) C.U. 67.2%, Ist Class M.Phil, Applied Math, 1996 78.2% Ph.D. 16/6/04. Rupanwita Gayen Madhyamik - 81.33%, 1st Divn. HS-79.6% 1st Divn. B.Sc.(Math)-J.U.,-83% Ist Class M.Sc.(Appl. Math)-J.U. 72.27%, Ist Class NET - 2002 Ph.D. Thesis submitted 20. In order to understand whether there were deficit of qualifications of the candidates, who were selected by the majority group Annexure "P-1" attached to the writ petition refers to the qualifications required. So far as candidate No. 8 Rakhi Bhattacharyya, the Executive Council has cancelled its recommendation. Therefore, only seven candidates in the order of merit were considered for the five posts of general candidates. So far as candidate No. 8 Rakhi Bhattacharyya, the Executive Council has cancelled its recommendation. Therefore, only seven candidates in the order of merit were considered for the five posts of general candidates. So far as these candidates, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent University at page 15 paragraph-VI in detail not only the qualification but also the academic credentials of these seven candidates are mentioned which reads as under :- "(vi) While mentioning the panels prepared by the majority and minority members of the Selection Committee the petitioner has wilfully and mischievously suppressed many facts. Of course, the glaring example is the bio-data of Dr. Bibhas Chandra Giri who has the highest number (35) of publications (20 in Foreign and 6 in Indian journals) and who was a JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Post Doctoral Fellow for two years at Hiroshima University, Japan and Post Doctoral Research Fellow for another two years at Pusan National University, South Korea. Also that Dr. Giri passed the qualifying NET examination in 1994, is surreptitiously suppressed by the petitioner. Besides, the teaching experience of none of the candidates has been mentioned. The details of facts that are suppressed by the petitioner are described below : 1. Dr. Abhijit Lahiri Specialisation I Solid Machaics. i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 01.06.2001 at Regional Computer Centre (A Government of India undertaking), Beliaghata, Kolkata. ii) Number of Publications : 10 2. Dr. Kallol Pal Specialisation in Pure Mathematics. i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 30.05.1997 at New Alipur College, Kolkata ii) Number of Publication : 4 iii) NET (1993), JRF 3. Dr. Bibhas Chandra Giri Specialisation in Operations research. i) B.Sc (Hons.) In Maths. - Second Class, no student obtained First Class that year in Mathematics (Hons.) in Vidyasaghar University. ii) Post Doctoral Research Fellow at Pusan National University for two years (2000- 2002). iii) JSPS Post Doctoral Research Fellow at Hiroshima University, Japan for two years (2002-2004). iv) Lecturer in Mathematics since 18.06.1997 at Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur, Kolkata. v) No. of Publications : 35 (29 in Foreign Journals and 6 in Indian Journals) vi) NET (1994) GATE (1993) vii) JRF & SRF 1. Smt. Alaka Das - Specialisation in Fluid Mechanics i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 16.01.2001 at Hooghly Womens College. ii) Number of Publications : 4 iii) NET (1993) iv) JRF & SRF 2. Dr. Arindam Bhattacharyya - Specialisation - Pure Mathematics. Smt. Alaka Das - Specialisation in Fluid Mechanics i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 16.01.2001 at Hooghly Womens College. ii) Number of Publications : 4 iii) NET (1993) iv) JRF & SRF 2. Dr. Arindam Bhattacharyya - Specialisation - Pure Mathematics. (i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 24.1.2001 at Kandi Raj College (ii) Number of Publications -5 6 Dr. Arun Kumar Jalan - Specialisation - Operations Research (i) Lecture in Mathematics since 16.1.2001 at Hoogly Women's College. (ii) Number of Publications : 4 (iii) NET (1993) (iv) JRF & SRF i) Lecturer in Mathematics since 8.01.2001 at MCKV Institute of Engineering, Liluah, Howrah. ii) Number of Publications : 6 iii) SRF 7. Dr. Mulpuri Shanthi Specialisation - Statistics i) Lecturer since 19.06.1991 at K.J. College, Kolkata. ii) Number of Publications : 3" 21. So far as candidates empanelled by the minority group of selection committee is at page 18 Paragraph-VIII which reads as under:- "viii. Out of eight candidates empanelled by the Minority Group of Selection Committee, three are non Ph.D. one has submitted the Ph.D. thesis and three are Ph.D. degree holders. Among the first five candidates (in the Minority Panel) to whom the appointment letters were to be issued if this panel would have been approved by the Executive Council. No. 1 candidate (Sandip Jana), No. 2 candidate (Anjan Kumar Bhuniya), No. 6 candidate (Sujata De (Ghosh) and No. 8 candidate (Rupanwita Gayen) are non-Ph.D. and the No. 4 candidate (Ujjal Debnath) had submitted the Ph.D. thesis while the No. 3 candidate (Kallol Pal), No. 5 candidate (Madhumita Dasgupta) and the No. 7 candidate (Atasi Deb Ray (Mitra) are the Ph.D. degree holders. The number of Publication of the aforesaid No. 1 and No. 2 candidates were only three (3) and one (1), respectively while their teaching experiences were from 14.05.2002 and 6.06.2003 respectively. The No. 4 candidate had no teaching experience and the No. 5 candidate had teaching experience from 02.04.2001. Out of the three other, the No. 6 candidate (Sujata De Ghosh) and the No. 7 candidate (Atasi Deb Ray (Mitra) had teaching experiences from 18.07.2002 and 21.07.2003, respectively while the No. 8 candidate (Rupanwita Gayen) had no teaching experience. Thus the qualifications, Publications and experiences of the candidates taken together in respect of candidates empanelled by the Minority Group of the Selection Committee are in no way better than those empanelled by the Majority Group." 22. Thus the qualifications, Publications and experiences of the candidates taken together in respect of candidates empanelled by the Minority Group of the Selection Committee are in no way better than those empanelled by the Majority Group." 22. In the affidavit-in-opposition they explain what exactly good academic record would mean which is already stated above. When compared to the academic record of selected candidates by the majority group of Selection Committee with that of the panel recommended by the minority group of Selection Committee definitely the academic career of the candidates selected by the majority group speaks volumes. This is so far as the reasoning why the majority group has selected the panel of candidates recommended by them. 23. Then coming to the locus standi of the writ petitioner, it is well settled that any individual can espouse cause of public if those candidates are not in a position to approach the Court of law for various reasons including financial restraint. But in the present case there is no such situation. Apparently the aggrieved candidates have not approached the Court. In order to consider this public interest litigation wherein writ of quo warranto is being sought for essentially the dispute seems to be between the employee and the employer rather than qualifications of the candidates. Even otherwise the qualification of the selected candidate is very much within the required parameter as per the notification. 24. The only grievance of the petitioner seems to be the percentage of marks obtained by the non-selected candidates are better than that of the percentage of marks, obtained by the selected candidates. But as already stated above when compared to the other achievement of the selected candidates, selected candidates have better academics than the non-selected candidates. 25. Then coming to the locus standi of the petitioner, it is categorically contended that in the three days of selection process only three hours were spent for the interviews which could not definitely indicate that there were serious selection process in order to select best candidates for the posts. The petitioner being one of the member of the Selection Committee ought to have raised this objection on the very first day of interview if he was not satisfied. Having completed the selection process on three days he ought not to have raised such controversy now. Even otherwise, the qualifications as such of the selected candidates are not in issue. The petitioner being one of the member of the Selection Committee ought to have raised this objection on the very first day of interview if he was not satisfied. Having completed the selection process on three days he ought not to have raised such controversy now. Even otherwise, the qualifications as such of the selected candidates are not in issue. 26. The real issue before us is whether non-selected candidates have better academics than that of the selected candidates. It is well settled that the court cannot sit over the judgment of the selection panel, who are experts in the process of selection. In other words, suitability or eligibility of candidates for appointment is to be kept within the domain of appointing authority. The Court can only scrutinise whether appointments are made contrary to the statutory provision or the Rule thereunder. The very case of the writ petitioner is not on that basis. According to the petitioner, the selected candidates are suitable so far as the required qualification is considered but non-selected candidates have better academics. Even, on facts as explained in the affidavit-in-opposition of the first respondent University except percentage of marks in one or two degrees selected candidates have better academics as they have published various publications apart from teaching experience. 27. In the light of the above discussions and reasoning we are of the opinion that the present public interest litigation is not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.