ORDER : 1. Assailing the Annexure P-1 & P-2 i.e. the Order of appointment of Respondents No.4 & 5 respectively, on the post of Lecturer (Economics) and also seeking for a direction to the Respondent University to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on the said post, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 2. Facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petition are that, an Advertisement inviting applications for various faculties in the University Teaching Department was published on 23.9.2006. Initially, the last date for submission of the application was 31.10.2006, however, it stood extended up till 30.1.2007. The post, in dispute, from the said recruitment is the post of Lecturer (Economics). Petitioner and Respondents No.4 & 5 had applied for the said post. For the said recruitment process, a Selection Committee was constituted consisting of four Members with the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University being its Chairman. After the assessment being made, interviews were held on 21.6.2007 and thereafter appointment orders were issued on 24.7.2007 in favour of the Respondents No.4 & 5. Subsequently, the Petitioner is said to have obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act from the concerned Departments. It was revealed that the selection was based on the marks to be awarded on academic merits i.e. 80% marks and the marks to be awarded for interview was 20% marks. It was then revealed to the Petitioner that less meritorious candidates have been given appointment. It was also revealed that the candidates whose applications were incomplete at the time of applying, were also permitted to participate in the selection process and as such undue favour has been shown towards them. This led to the filing of the present Writ Petition by the Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the Selection Committee showed undue favour to the Respondents No.4 & 5 both in the academic qualification & experience as also in the interview. The allocation of marks have been erroneously made and the Respondent No.4 has been awarded marks much more than which could be awarded. The Respondent No.4 has also been awarded extra marks for her experience, whereas she was not entitled for it because she had only worked as a Guest Faculty which could not fetch her any marks towards experience. The allocation of marks have been erroneously made and the Respondent No.4 has been awarded marks much more than which could be awarded. The Respondent No.4 has also been awarded extra marks for her experience, whereas she was not entitled for it because she had only worked as a Guest Faculty which could not fetch her any marks towards experience. Similarly, extra marks have also been allotted to the Respondent No.4 for her publications so also for the National and International Workshops/Seminars. Even in the interview, the Respondents No.4 & 5 have been given exorbitant marks, i.e., 19/20, as compared to 3/20 awarded to the Petitioner. The Respondents No.4 & 5 were in fact permitted to submit the application even after the cut off date. Further, the Respondents No.4 & 5 were also permitted to produce documents in support of their candidature in piecemeal at regular intervals. This would also have made the Respondents No.4 & 5 disqualified from being considered. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent University opposing the Petition submits that there was no discrepancy in the entire selection process. The entire selection has been under the Chairmanship of the vice Chancellor and a team of highly qualified Members. There is no allegation of any mala fides alleged against any of the Members of the Selection Committee. There has been no favour whatsoever shown to the Respondent No.4 or Respondent No.5. Each of the candidates were assessed on their individual merits and credentials. There were no documents which the Respondents No.4 & 5 had submitted beyond the last date of applying. It is not in dispute that all the information disclosed by the Respondents No.4 & 5 in their application form submitted at the time of applying for the said post were not incorrect. All these credentials were verified and scrutinized by the Selection Committee and the Committee was satisfied of the same. Thus, there is hardly any scope of interference left for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Adopting the Reply filed on behalf of the Respondent University, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 has also vehemently opposed the Petition denying any favour or undue favour shown to Respondent No.4. Thus, there is hardly any scope of interference left for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Adopting the Reply filed on behalf of the Respondent University, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 has also vehemently opposed the Petition denying any favour or undue favour shown to Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, adopting the Reply of the Respondent University, specifically took a plea that the Petitioner has not been able to establish the mala fides on the part of any of the Officers of the Respondent University, nor has the Petitioner been able to establish any malice which the Respondents had against him. In addition, the Petitioner has also not been able to establish any strong grounds, reasons or materials as to why the Respondent University or the Selection Committee, in particular, has done any undue favour to Respondents No.4 & 5. In the absence of all of which, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The substantial challenge in the present Writ Petition is the alleged illegal appointment given to the Respondents No.4 & 5 by the Respondent University. 7. The Advertisement for filling up of the post of various faculties in the University Teaching Department is that which is published vide Annexure P-4 enclosed along with the present Writ Petition. Under the said Advertisement, the dispute arose only so far as the appointment made in the Department of Economics is concerned. The total number of posts advertised for Lecturer was 4 of which 1 post each was reserved for Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Castes categories and 2 posts were reserved for the Unreserved category. As per the scheme for appointment, the marks were to be allotted based upon the credentials of the candidates. The allotment of marks was also already decided under the scheme. As per the scheme for appointment, the marks were to be allotted based upon the credentials of the candidates. The allotment of marks was also already decided under the scheme. For ready reference, the allotment of marks as per the scheme for the post of Lecturer is reproduced herein under:- ^^2- fo’ofo|ky; 'kS{kf.kd foHkkx esa inksa ds p;u gsrq vad foHkktu % fofHkUu inksa gsrq vadksa dk foHkktu fuEukuqlkj gksxk%& ¼1½ O;k[;krk 1 Lukrd Lrj ij 85 izfr'kr ;k mlls vf/kd vadksa ij 10 vad 2 LukrdksRrj Lrj ij 85 izfr'kr ;k mlls vf/kd vadksa ij 15 vad 3 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko Lukrd@LukrdksRrj v/;kiu dk fu;fer izk/;kid ds :i esa izfr ,d Ok"kZ ds fy;s 01 vad] vf/kdre 05 vad 4- usV@LysV mRrh.kZ izR;k'kh ;fn usV@LYksV mRrh.kZ djus ds i'pkr ih-,p-Mh- mikf/k izkIr djus ij 15 vad 5 [;kfr izkIr 'kks/k if=dk esa izfr 'kks/k i= izdkf'kr fd;s tkus vFkok izfr Lrjh; xzaFk izdk'ku ij 01 vad] vf/kdre 20 vad 6 jk”Vªh; odZ'kki@lsehukj@flEiksft;k esa 'kks/k i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij izfr 'kks/k i= 01 vad] vf/kdre 05 vad 7 varjkZ”Vªh; odZ’kki@lsehukj flEiksft;k esa 'kks/k i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij izfr 'kks/k i= 01 vad vf/kdre~ 10 vad uksV & 1- jk"Vªh; ,oa varjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ij izdkf'kr 'kks/k i=ksa ,oa lsehukj bR;kfn esa Hkkxhnkjh ds Lrjh; gksus dk ewY;kadu p;u lfefr }kjk fd;k tk,xkA 2- mijksDr vad foHkktu rHkh ekU; gksxk tcfd mijksDr miyfC/k;ka lacaf/kr fo"k; dh gksaA 3- fo'ofo|ky; ds fofHkUu laLFkkuksa esa O;k[;krk in gsrq lacaf/kr fo"k;ksa dh U;wure vgZrk ;w-th-lh-@,e-lh-vkbZ-@,-vkbZ-lh-Vh-bZ-@ih-lh-vkbZ ds vuq:i eku: gksxhA 4- vfHk;kaf=dh foHkkxksa esa ;ksX;rk,a vf[ky Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh ifj"kn~ ubZ fnYyh }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk gS] ftlds varxZr O;k[;krk gsrq U;wure vgZrk vfHk;kaf=dh es LukrdksRrj mikf/k gSA** 8. There were in all 57 candidates who were subjected to scrutiny for appointment to the post of Lecturer (General). A tabulation chart in the process of the Selection Committee scrutinizing the credentials of the 57 candidates were prepared in the format as given below:- Deptt. of Economics Post : Lecturer (Gen.) Date : 21.06.2007 S.No. Name of Candidate UG 85% and above marks 10 PG 85% and above marks 15 UG/PG Teaching experience each year 1 mark, max. 05 marks After clearing NET/SLET obtaining Ph.D. marks 15 Reputed Res. Journal each paper/each book 01 mark, max 20 marks N.Works hop/ Seminar/ Symposia each paper 01 mark max. 05 marks After clearing NET/SLET obtaining Ph.D. marks 15 Reputed Res. Journal each paper/each book 01 mark, max 20 marks N.Works hop/ Seminar/ Symposia each paper 01 mark max. 20 marks Intern work/ Seminar/ Symposia each paper 01 mark, max 10 marks Interview 20 marks Total 100 marks 37 Mr. Dilip Kumar Jha 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 19 35 43 Dr. Namita Sharma 0 0 3 0 2 4 2 19 30 47 Dr. Krishan Kumar Sharma 0 0 05 0 14 4 0 03 26 Since we are concerned with the appointment given to the Respondents No.4 & 5 qua the claim of the Petitioner, this Court is enumerating the marks awarded to these three persons i.e. the Petitioner along with Respondents No.4 & 5. The name of the Petitioner appears at Sl. No.47 whereas the name of Respondent No.4 stands at Sl. No.43 and that of Respondent No.5 at Sl. No.37. 9. From the afore given Tabulation Chart, it is evidently clear that the Respondent No.5 had scored 35 marks whereas the Respondent No.4 was awarded 30 marks and the Petitioner was awarded 26 marks. From perusal of the Tabulation Chart, what is also reflected is that the marks given to the Respondent No.5 for the Post Graduation and in the Interview, the Respondent No.5's score would under any circumstances is more than the Petitioner. Therefore, there does not seem to be any controversy or conflict so far as the appointment of Respondent No.5 is concerned. 10. Under the circumstances, it is only the appointment of the Respondent No.4, the credentials of Respondent No.4, the allotment of marks qua the credentials of Respondent No.4, that what is subjected to the judicial review for the purpose of determining the claim of the Petitioner and also deciding whether the appointment given to the Respondent No.4 being proper, legal and justified or not. 11. From the Tabulation Chart, what is also reflected is that the Respondent No.4 was awarded 3 marks for her UG/PG teaching experience, where the Committee could award 1 mark for each year of experience with the maximum of 5 marks which could be awarded. Likewise, in respect of paper publication in reputed Journals, the Respondent No.4 has been awarded 2 marks. Similarly, for the National Workshops/Seminars, she has been awarded 4 marks and for International Workshops/Seminars she has been awarded 2 marks. 12. Likewise, in respect of paper publication in reputed Journals, the Respondent No.4 has been awarded 2 marks. Similarly, for the National Workshops/Seminars, she has been awarded 4 marks and for International Workshops/Seminars she has been awarded 2 marks. 12. Now, what is to be seen is that whether the allocation of marks under the aforesaid four heads has been after taking into consideration the credentials of Respondent No.4 or not. The Respondent No.4 first of all has been awarded 3 marks for teaching experience. Apparently, the Respondent No.4 did not have any regular appointment anywhere else for the purpose of teaching experience, except for her brief engagement somewhere in between as a Guest Lecturer which under no circumstances can be accepted as regular appointment. Thus, the allotment of 3 marks to Respondent No.4 under the head of "teaching experience" does not seem to be justified under any circumstances. There is no evidence on record to show any paper publication by the Respondent No.4 in any of the reputed Journals. Whatever materials have been taken into account by the Selection Committee cannot be said to be meeting the requirements, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. 13. Similarly, there is also no cogent, strong material and proof available on record with the University Authorities to show that the Respondent No.4 has attended any of four National Workshops and Seminars or, for that matter, any International Seminar or Workshop, yet for both these the Respondent No.4 has been awarded 6 marks, which again seems to have been arbitrarily awarded in order to give undue favour to Respondent No.4. If these marks for the four headings reflected in the preceding paragraph, i.e., the marks allotted under the UG/PG teaching experience, marks allotted for publication of search papers in any reputed Journals and for the National/International Workshops/Seminars, the Respondent No.4 has been awarded in all 11 marks. Minus these 11 marks, the score of Respondent No.4 would have been only 19 which is much lesser than the score of the Petitioner who had scored 26 marks. It is here that the Petitioner is aggrieved of and has raised questions on the selection process and the Selection Committee. Minus these 11 marks, the score of Respondent No.4 would have been only 19 which is much lesser than the score of the Petitioner who had scored 26 marks. It is here that the Petitioner is aggrieved of and has raised questions on the selection process and the Selection Committee. Even if the Respondent No.4 is given half of what has been awarded otherwise under these four headings, even then the Respondent No.4 would not have scored more than what has been scored by the Petitioner. It is therefore that the Petitioner has been pursuing his claim all through from the year 2008 till now. 14. True it is that this Court is conscious of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters of recruitment and selection, this Court is also aware that the scope of interference is too limited. It is settled position of law that normally the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged as a matter of routine. The High Court would not sit over the Selection Committee's recommendations as if it is sitting as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations by the Court of Appeal. Nor has it been conferred upon the Courts, particularly upon the Writ Court to examine the credentials of each of the candidates and to form its opinion. 15. In "M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC" [ 2008 (2) SCC 119 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory Rules. The Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the Court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion..." 16. Earlier also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "R.S. Dass v. Union of India" [1986 Supp. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit in court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion..." 16. Earlier also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "R.S. Dass v. Union of India" [1986 Supp. SCC 617] while dealing with the powers of the High Court and the Tribunals testing the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee, held that it is not their domain, particularly when the Selection Committee is consisted by high-ranking responsible officers. It was also the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no reason to hold that such high-ranking responsible officers would not act in fair and impartial manner in making selection. However, in the same Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Where power is vested in high authority there is a presumption that the same would be exercised in a reasonable manner and if the selection is made on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner, the Courts have ample power to strike down the same and that is an adequate safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power." 17. A similar view has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya & Ors" [ 2018 (15) SCC 796 ] where in para-17 it has been held that "Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the Courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness." 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. K. Kalyana Raman" [ AIR 1992 SC 1806 ] has observed that:- "8. ...The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. ..." 19. In "R.S. Dass Vs. Union of India" [ AIR 1987 SC 593 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that:- "28. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. ..." 19. In "R.S. Dass Vs. Union of India" [ AIR 1987 SC 593 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that:- "28. The selection committee and the Commission both include persons having requisite knowledge, experience and expertise to assess the service records and ability to adjudge the suitability of officers. In this view we find no good reasons to hold that in the absence of reasons the selection would be made arbitrarily. Where power is vested in high authority there is a presumption that the same would be exercised in a reasonable manner and if the selection is made on extraneous considerations, in arbitrary manner the courts have ample power to strike down the same and that is an adequate safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power." 20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of "Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India" [ 1994 (6) SCC 651 ] held that:- "... It is open to the court to review the decisionmaker's evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decisionmaker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld." 21. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Union of India Vs. S.P. Nayyar" [ 2014 (14) SCC 370 ] has held as under:- "11. It is settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own, on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee." 22. From the aforementioned legal propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparently clear that in a case where the Selection Committee takes extraneous considerations in arbitrary manner ignoring the merits, the High Court would have all the powers to test the reasonableness of the action on the part of the Selection Committee, under its power of judicial review. 23. In the instant case, this Court had directed the Respondent University Authorities to make available the documents relating to the selection process. Perusal of these records with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the Respondent University, this Court did not find sufficient materials with which the marks awarded to the Respondent No.4 in respect of her (a) teaching experience (b) paper publication in reputed Journals (c) paper presentation in any of the National Workshops/Seminars and (d) paper presentation in the International Workshops/Seminars, wherein the Petitioner combined was awarded 11 marks. This, in the opinion of this Court, was with mala fide intentions and was arbitrarily awarded without any justification, nor is there any explanation or justification available on record in the process of awarding these marks against the requirements that are reflected in the scheme for allotment of marks reproduced in the preceding paragraph. 24. For the given reasons, the appointment of Respondent No.4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The appointment of Respondent No.4 was on extraneous considerations by awarding marks which she was otherwise not deserving and entitled for. Her order of appointment (Annexure P-1, dated 24.7.2007) therefore requires to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 25. Upon the quashment of the order of appointment of Respondent No.4, it would be the Petitioner who would be the second meritorious candidate after Respondent No.5, who would be entitled to be appointed against the post of Lecturer. The Respondent University is directed to consider the appointment of the Petitioner against the appointment of Respondent No.4. The Petitioner would also be entitled for notional seniority from the date the Respondent No.4 was appointed. However, the actual benefits shall be extended only from the date the Petitioner joins the service. The Petitioner would also be entitled for all other consequential benefits, except for the actual payment for the intervening period where the Petitioner would be entitled only for the notional benefits and notional fixation. However, the actual benefits shall be extended only from the date the Petitioner joins the service. The Petitioner would also be entitled for all other consequential benefits, except for the actual payment for the intervening period where the Petitioner would be entitled only for the notional benefits and notional fixation. In the event when the Petitioner is not inclined to accept the appointment, the Respondents can consider retaining the services of Respondent No.4. 26. The Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed.