Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 210 (ALL)

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-25

PANKAJ MITHAL, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The Director, U.P. Council for Sugar cane Research, Shahjahanpur vide advertisement No. 2/14 invited applications apart from other posts of the Scientific Officers in the following fields : 1) Sugar Chemistry-01; 2) Pesticide Chemistry-01; 3) Bio-Chemistry-01; and 4) Soil Chemistry-02 2. The aforesaid advertisement in accordance with the U.P. Council of Sugar cane Research services Recruitment Rules specified the following eligibility conditions for the post of Scientific Officer: ^^lEcfU/kr fo"k; esa ,eŒ,lŒlhŒ@,eŒ,lŒlhŒ ¼,xjhdYpjy½ ds lkFk xUus ls lEcfU/kr 'kks/k dk;Z dk U;wure rhu o"kZ dk vuqHkoA** ojh;ku%& 1- ihŒ,pŒMhŒ dh mikf/kA 2- mPp Js.kh ds vUrZjk"Vªh;@jk"Vªh; oSKkfud tuZy esa izdk'kuA** 3. In addition to the aforesaid eligibility conditions which are part of appendix (iii) of the aforesaid Rules, appendix (iv) of the said Rules provides that the Recruitment Board/Selection Committee shall consists of the following persons: 1- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] phuh m|ksx ,oa xUuk fodkl\ mŒizŒ 'kklu&v/;{kA 2- funs'kd] mRrj izns'k] xUuk 'kks/k ifj"kn&lfpo@lnL;A 3- xUuk vk;qDr] mRrj izns'k&lnLA 4- nks fo"k; fo'ks"kK okg~; LFkkuksa ls ¼v/;{k ds vuqefr ls½& lnL;A 4. The petitioner who is M.Sc., in Chemistry with specialization in Organic Chemistry and Directorate in Life Science also applied for the post of Scientific Officer in all the above disciplines. The name of the petitioner was short listed for the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Sugar Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry but not for the post of Scientific Officer, Pesticide Chemistry and Soil Chemistry. Accordingly, the petitioner was interviewed for the above two posts but was not selected. 5. Thus, aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition contenting that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as it had no expert of the subject. The petitioner’s candidature for the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Pesticide Chemistry and Soil Chemistry was incorrectly ousted even though the qualification for the post of Scientific Officer for all the disciplines were the same. 6. We have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Standing counsel appeared for the State of U.P., respondent No. 1. 7. 6. We have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Standing counsel appeared for the State of U.P., respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the parties consented for the disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the pleadings on record though a feeble attempt was made to get the proceedings adjourned to seek further instructions which we declined for the reason that the pleadings were already over and there was no justification to have any additional pleadings. 8. It is settled in law that a candidate who participates in the selection proceeding and remains unsuccessful cannot be permitted to turn around and to challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee. 9. The petitioner in Paragraph 24 of the writ petition has only stated that for the purposes of interview short listing was conducted by a Committee which have no person relating to the subject of Chemistry as its member. This has been denied by the other side. 10. It is necessary to clarify that the applications received for the post of Scientific Officer were screened and were short listed by a Committee of three members known as Screening Committee. The Rules do not provide for constitution of any Screening Committee which becomes necessary when large number of applications are received. The aforesaid Screening Committee is distinct from the Selection Committee which took the interviews and finally recommended the names of the selected Candidates. 11. Appendix (iv) to the Rules provides for constitution of a Selection Committee and not of the Screening Committee. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Selection committee had no experts. Even otherwise, the profile of the alleged one of the experts enclosed with the rejoinder-affidavit did not disclose the actual qualifications of the said expert which may indicate that he is not an expert in the concerned subject rather the discipline of his specialization reveals that he has to his credit much higher qualification in the discipline of plant pathology and disease management. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the argument that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted or was not having two experts of the subject. The petitioner otherwise also has no right to dispute the same after having participated in the selection. 13. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the argument that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted or was not having two experts of the subject. The petitioner otherwise also has no right to dispute the same after having participated in the selection. 13. Now coming to the other argument that when the qualification for the post of Scientific Officer in all the above four disciplines were same there is no reason for not short listing the petitioner for two of the disciplines namely Pesticide Chemistry and Soil Chemistry. 14. Sri Siddharth Singh on the basis of the certificates and the mark sheet of the petitioner pointed out that none of the papers which were part of the curriculum of the petitioner in M.Sc.,indicates that one of the papers concerns the discipline of Pesticide Chemistry and Soil Chemistry and as such he had not studied those disciplines in M.Sc. 15. The petitioner has not been short listed in the above two disciplines for the post of Scientific Officer as his qualification of M.Sc., was not in relation to the discipline of Pesticide Chemistry and Soil Chemistry. The elimination of the petitioner in short listing may also be on account of the fact that sufficient number of better candidates may be available which may have necessitated the exclusion of the petitioner in those two disciplines. 16. It is not the case of the petitioner that suitable number of candidates in the said two disciplines were not short listed or that he possessed better merit than the others who were short listed. 17. In view of the above, it is difficult to find fault with the short listing of the names. 18. It may be pertinent to mention here that on the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Sugar Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry one candidate each was selected and their selection is not under challenge. On the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Soil Chemistry out of two posts one has been filled up by selection but again there is no challenge to the said selection. The post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Pesticide Chemistry has not been filled up as no person was found suitable for selection. 19. On the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Soil Chemistry out of two posts one has been filled up by selection but again there is no challenge to the said selection. The post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Pesticide Chemistry has not been filled up as no person was found suitable for selection. 19. Accordingly, one post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Soil Chemistry and that of Pesticide Chemistry remained unfilled which have to be re-advertised and the petitioner will have an opportunity to apply again for the said posts. 20. Thus, in the over all facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner on account of his elimination in short listing on the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Soil Chemistry and Pesticide Chemistry and by his non selection on the post of Scientific Officer in the discipline of Sugar Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry. It is Therefore not a case for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 21. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.