Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 795 (GAU)

Geetima Deka v. State of Assam

2018-05-14

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. Petitioner, Dr. Geetima Deka assails the selection of the Respondent No. 8 i.e. Dr. Pradyumna Goswami by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry (Non-Ayurvedic) at the Government Ayurvedic College & Hospital, Guwahati, primarily on the ground that his specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry is wholly unsuitable for the post of Lecturer having regard to the course and subjects to be taught to the students at the Ayurvedic College. Petitioner projects that the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the Ayurvedic College is only suitable to those having knowledge and specialisation in Organic Chemistry alone, which is the forte of the writ petitioner. 2. Facts emerging are that on 07.11.2015 the Assam Public Service Commission published an Advertisement inviting applications for the post, amongst another, of Lecturer in Chemistry (Non-Ayurvedic) at Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati under the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department. Qualification prescribed included good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level in Chemistry. As many as 61(sixty one) candidates responded to the Advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry (Non-Ayurvedic), out of which 36(thirty six) candidates were called for interview, which included both the writ petitioner and the Respondent No. 8. There were 3(three) Interview Boards and each Board comprised of an APSC Member and a Subject Expert in the capacity of an Expert Member. The 36(thirty six) candidates were accordingly divided amongst the 3(three) Interview Boards. After completion of the interview the merit of all the 36(thirty six) candidates were assessed and consequent thereto the Respondent No. 8 was selected and recommended for appointment to the said post of Lecturer in Chemistry. 3. Case laid out by the petitioner is that although the Respondent No. 8 has been selected and recommended by APSC, no appointment can be offered to said Respondent No. 8 as he is a misfit for the post, in as much as, having regard to the course and syllabus, it is only a person having specialisation in Organic Chemistry is suitable for the post. In this regard, Mr. In this regard, Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner makes reference to the additional affidavit dated 05.03.2018 filed by Respondent No. 7 i.e. the Principal of the Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati to show that even the Principal is of the clear view of the necessity of Organic Chemistry for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. From the said additional affidavit, reference is also made to a letter dated 02.07.2016 written by the Head of Department, Sharir Kriya, Government Ayurvedic College & Hospital, addressed to the Respondent No. 7 which shows that the faculty of Chemistry in the Government Ayurvedic College is attached to the Department of Sharir Kriya to take theory and practical classes of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Science (BAMS) course, which course is designed as per the syllabus recommended by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM). The Head of the Department has opined that having regard to the course of study only a person having Masters Degree in Chemistry with specialisation in Organic Chemistry can handle the subjects for teaching at the College. The Head of the Department has also opined that selection of the person by the APSC for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry at the College with specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry would cause great difficulty for the Department of Sharir Kriya to conduct the course of study. Mr. Borbora also makes reference to a letter dated 28.12.2010 issued by the Respondent No. 7 i.e. the Principal of the College, addressed to the Joint Secretary in the Health & Family Welfare Department pertaining to filling up of the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the said College. While expressing the urgent necessity for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry at the College, the said Respondent No. 7 indicated that the requisite qualification for the post is Masters Degree in Chemistry, preferably Organic Chemistry. According to Mr. Borbora the expert views of the Principal for confining the requisite qualification to Masters Degree in Chemistry with specialisation in Organic Chemistry, could not have been ignored while publishing the Advertisement. By referring to the additional affidavit dated 05.03.2018 of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is shown that despite draft Advertisement having been prepared mentioning Organic Chemistry as specialization, the same did not fructify only due to objection and intervention of the Director of AYUSH, Assam. Mr. By referring to the additional affidavit dated 05.03.2018 of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is shown that despite draft Advertisement having been prepared mentioning Organic Chemistry as specialization, the same did not fructify only due to objection and intervention of the Director of AYUSH, Assam. Mr. Borbora submits that in the scheme of things the Director of AYUSH, Assam had no business to fix eligibility norms. On the above aspects, prayer made in the writ petition is for setting aside the Select List dated 02.07.2016 whereby Respondent No. 8 was selected and recommended to the post in question on the basis of merit. There is, however, no prayer seeking selection and recommendation of the petitioner herself. 4. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam representing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the qualifications laid down are in tandem with the UGC regulations laying down minimum qualifications for appointment of University and College teachers. Further, the Advertisement of the APSC dated 07.11.2015, not having specified any specialization in Organic Chemistry, the same cannot be read into for denying benefit of selection to the Respondent No. 8. 5. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel representing Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) submits from affidavit filed that there is no mention of any specialization in Organic Chemistry in the Advertisement. If the petitioner was aggrieved, challenge ought to have been made to the said Advertisement. Referring to the procedure adopted to take interview of 36(thirty six) candidates before 3(three) different Interview Boards constituted for the purpose, it is stated that selection was made on the basis of assessment of academic career, experience, performance in the interview as assessed by the Members of the Interview Board on their individual judgment. On comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates, the Respondent No. 8 was adjudged as most suitable. Accordingly, the name of Respondent No. 8 was recommended for the post in question. 6. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondent No. 8 argues that the syllabi in the 1st year BAMS course as well as in the Post Graduate course in the College involves a combination of all three branches of Chemistry i.e. Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry. 6. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondent No. 8 argues that the syllabi in the 1st year BAMS course as well as in the Post Graduate course in the College involves a combination of all three branches of Chemistry i.e. Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry. As such, it is contended that this aspect alone would show that the argument advanced by the petitioner with regard to having specialization in Organic Chemistry to be suitable for the post in question, is altogether baseless and incorrect. 7. Counsels for the parties have made elaborate arguments, either to the redundancy of specialization in Inorganic Chemistry and/or the requirement of specialization in Organic Chemistry for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the College. This Court would refrain from delving into the dispute raised for the simple reason that this Court would shy away from entering into the domain of experts in the field. This Court, not clothed with the requisite technical expertise to differentiate between special subjects like Inorganic and Organic Chemistry and/or which specialisation would be suitable or unsuitable for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the College, as such, it cannot override or ignore the assessment made by experts in the field for the purpose of selecting candidate to the particular post. In the instant case, selection was made after assessment of the academic credentials of the candidates, their experience, performance before the Interview Board, which were assessed by the APSC Members and the Subject Expert present in each of the 3(three) Interview Boards. If an expert in the field have made an assessment as regards the suitability of a candidate having regard to his/her academic credentials, it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the assessment so made by the Expert Member. It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission, which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the Court should be slow to interject or interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. In the instant case, there are no allegations of mala fide in respect of any Member in any of the 3(three) Interview Boards. In the instant case, there are no allegations of mala fide in respect of any Member in any of the 3(three) Interview Boards. Further, when the suitability of a candidate is considered and decided by an expert body for a specified post after giving due consideration to all relevant factors, in that case, Court should not interfere with such selection and evaluation. 8. There is another aspect which goes to the root of the matter. The writ petitioner participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the educational qualification indicated in the Advertisement. She had full knowledge that specialization in Organic Chemistry was not a preferential criteria for selection. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, only because the result of the interview was not palatable to her, she cannot turn around and challenge the selection process, either with regard to her non-selection despite having specialization in Organic Chemistry and/or selection of the Respondent No. 8 who has specialization in Inorganic Chemistry which qualification, according to the petitioner, is not suitable for the post in question. It is not shown and established by the petitioner that the educational qualification prescribed in the Advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry (Non-Ayurvedic) at Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati was contrary to any statutory rules. If at all the petitioner had any objection to the Advertisement with regard to non-mentioning of Organic Chemistry as a specialization for the post in question, she could have challenged the same without participating in the selection process. This apparently was not done and therefore, she is estopped and precluded from challenging or questioning the selection process. 9. Having regard to the above, this writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Interim order passed in the case directing the respondents not to issue consequential Notification for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry (Non-Ayurvedic) in the Government Ayurvedic College & Hospital, Guwahati stands recalled. The parties are left to bear their own cost.