Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 378 (UTT)

Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-22

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the restoration application will stand condoned. The delay condonation application stands disposed of. The restoration application is allowed. The writ petition stands restored. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits also. 3. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission dated 21.02.2010, the petitioner applied for the post of Fodder Development Officer. The petitioner was interviewed; however, he was not selected and the third respondent was selected. Feeling aggrieved, he seeks the certiorari to quash the selection of the third respondent and a direction to restrain the respondent nos. 1 & 2 from appointing him. 4. We heard Mr. Vinjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and also Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Four contentions are raised by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Firstly, he would draw our attention to Clause 8 of the advertisement. The translation of the same, which is provided in the rejoinder affidavit, reads as follows:- “8. On the basis of any advertisement, if the no. of applications are excessive & it will not be convenient for the commission to take interview of all candidates, then the commission has the right to sort out the candidates being called for interview:- (a) Minimum qualification in the advertisement & more qualification than the experience & on the basis of the experience or. (b) On the basis of the experience in the relevant field or. (c) Prior to getting essential qualification or adding afterwards experience or. (d) Conduction of screening examination. Therefore candidates are advised that they have more than minimum educational qualification & exp., all these should be mentioned in the application & in support of above qualification & experience certified/self attested copy must be enclosed.” 6. He would expatiate and submit that though one of the methods provided under Clause 8 is to consider experience of the candidates and petitioner’s experience was not considered. He would submit that no screen test was held and, without screening, how the selection could be said to be held. He would expatiate and submit that though one of the methods provided under Clause 8 is to consider experience of the candidates and petitioner’s experience was not considered. He would submit that no screen test was held and, without screening, how the selection could be said to be held. The second contention, which is taken, is that the persons, who interviewed the petitioner, were not having the requisite qualification to assess the suitability of the petitioner. In this regard, he contends that qualifications stipulated for appointment as Fodder Development Officer are Masters Degree in Agriculture. The further qualification was Bachelor in Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry. Petitioner applied on the basis of his being Graduate with three years experience. Conspicuous, however, by the absence in the Interview Board, was anyone having qualification in Agriculture. In this regard, he would submit that he applied for the information relating to the persons who interviewed him and the information supplied showed Dr. Geeta Chauhan, Senior Scientist Ph.D. (Food & Nutrition), Dr. Kamal Singh, C.E.O., ULDB, UK (MVSC Gyeno & Obst.). The third person was Dr. P.P. Gupta, Additional Director Research Ludhiana, Dean Ph.D. Path (AIIMS) FRV, Path. Next, he would submit that there was nobody from the Department in the Interview Board. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the selection of the third respondent. 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 defended the selection. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission would emphasize that actually, this is an advertisement issued to fill up the post in the Animal Husbandry Department. Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 would submit that the petitioner has participated in the interview and, having participated in the interview, he cannot be permitted to turn around and question the selection. He would also submit that under the Rules made under Article 309 relating to the post, there is no stipulation in regard to the members of the Selection Committee for direct recruitment. The case of Public Service Commission was having left free in this matter. 8. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was not aware of the qualifications of the persons constituted for the Interview Board and, therefore, mere fact that he participated would not detract from his right to challenge the selection. 9. The case of Public Service Commission was having left free in this matter. 8. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was not aware of the qualifications of the persons constituted for the Interview Board and, therefore, mere fact that he participated would not detract from his right to challenge the selection. 9. The first question is whether petitioner is correct in relying upon Clause 8 of the advertisement. In this regard, we may refer to the counter affidavit of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Therein, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has, inter alia, stated as follows:- “6. That the contents of para 8 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. In reply it is submitted that although there is a procedure of screening test, but in the present selection since the syllabus of M.Sc. (Agriculture) is not available with the answering respondent in case the same is prepared and then got recommended from the Government, thereafter for screening test the paper setting is done, at least six months time can be consumed and keeping in view this fact all the 52 candidates were called for interview although clause 8 of the advertisement gives right to the answering respondent to conduct a screening test in case there are more candidates, but the same is not mandatory for the answering respondent to conduct such screening test. As clarified above, since there is no syllabus of M.Sc. Agriculature and in case it is prepared and screening test is conducted the same could take more than 6 months, as such no screening test was conducted and all the candidates were called for interview as per the clause 8 of the advertisement. A copy of the advertisement has already been filed as Annexure No.-1 to the writ petition.” 10. Therefore, actually, Clause 8 contemplates a situation where Commission takes a decision to go for short listing having regard to large number of applications. Clause 8 enumerates four methods of screening; among them, no doubt, includes experience. Therefore, in this case, however, as already noted, all the candidates, including, what is more important, the petitioner was called for the interview. Therefore, petitioner cannot contend that experience was not considered and, in fact, Clause 8 has no application in the facts of this case. Clause 8 enumerates four methods of screening; among them, no doubt, includes experience. Therefore, in this case, however, as already noted, all the candidates, including, what is more important, the petitioner was called for the interview. Therefore, petitioner cannot contend that experience was not considered and, in fact, Clause 8 has no application in the facts of this case. We must also remind ourselves, when we appreciate the other contentions, that it is the settled law that the Writ Court will not sit in judgment over the merits of the selection made by the body of experts. The exceptional circumstances are mala fides or violation of any statutory prescription. With these prefatory remarks, we may consider whether there is merit in the contention that members of the Selection Board were not having the requisite qualification to asses the competence and suitability of the petitioner. Petitioner is a graduate; but, fulfills the required qualification having three years experience. The post, in question, is the Fodder Development Officer. We have already noted the names and the qualifications of the persons, who interviewed the petitioner. From the panel, which has been supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, we notice, no doubt, the name of Dr. H.S. Singh, Senior Research Officer, who was having Msc. Agriculture and Ph.D. with ULDB (Himalyan Fodder Plan). There is also Dr. M.P. Mishra, Additional Director Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Lucknow. Certainly, it would have been ideal if the Commission had included somebody who had qualification of Msc. in Agriculture when it comes to interviewing the persons, who had the alternate qualification of Msc. in Agriculture. But, the question to be answered by us is whether for a reason that there was nobody having Msc. in Agriculture, the interview of the petitioner is vitiated. We must notice that Dr. Geeta Chauhan was a Senior Scientist having Ph.D. in Food & Nutrition. We cannot take the view that she would not to be familiar with the subjects which are relevant. Likewise, we notice that Dr. Kamal Singh is the Chief Executive Officer of ULDB, which is translated as Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board. His qualification is said to be Masters in Veterinary Science with Gyeno & Obst. from Lucknow and the last person is also having Ph.D. Pathalogy from AIIMS. Likewise, we notice that Dr. Kamal Singh is the Chief Executive Officer of ULDB, which is translated as Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board. His qualification is said to be Masters in Veterinary Science with Gyeno & Obst. from Lucknow and the last person is also having Ph.D. Pathalogy from AIIMS. We would have to attribute lack of knowledge of the subjects, which are relevant for the post and for which petitioner stakes his claim on the basis of Graduation with three years experience. In such circumstances, we would repel the contention and, at the same, we would only observe that the Public Service Commission will be more careful in future when it takes a decision to interview candidates on the basis of different qualifications and take in the panel the persons, who are having the most suitable qualifications to assess the suitability of the candidates. At least, one such person should be included in the selection process. As far as no person being there from the Department, the learned counsel for the Commission would point out that Dr. Kamal Singh was there, who is the C.E.O. of the Livestock Development Board. We would, therefore, think that the said contention also cannot be attracted. 11. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.