Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KULDIP CHAND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF H.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/1997
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas
J.S. Attri, Devendra Singh, Advs. for the appellant
T. Sridharan and P.D. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on
tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme
1991. Respondent No.4 challenged his appointment on the
basis that he was academically more meritorious than the
appellant and that the Selection Committee was not justified
in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to
respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed
the application of respondent No.4 and quashed the selection
of the appellant. The appellant has put the order of the
State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in
issue.
The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell
in complete error in judging the comparative merit of the
candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in
viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to
respondent No.4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in
entering into the field exclusively reserved for the
selection committee. The finding that the appellant
‘manipulated’ his selection is not supported by any material
and reason and is purely a conjectural finding.
In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke. etc. etc. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan
etc. etc. (AIR 1990 SC 434), while dealing with some what
identical question, this court opined:
"It is needless to emphasise that
it is not the function of the Court
to hear appeals over the decisions
of the Selection Committees and to
scrutinize the relative merits of
the candidate. Whether a candidate
is fit for a particular post or not
has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
which has the expertise on the
subject. The court has no such
expertise. The decision of the
Selection Committee can interfered
with only on limited grounds, such
as illegality or patent material
irregularity in the constitution of
the Committee or its procedure
vitiating the selection, or proved
mala fides affecting the selection
etc. It is not disputed that in the
present case the University has
constituted the Committee in due
compliance with the relevant
status. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the
candidates after going through all
the relevant material before it. In
sitting in appeal over the
selection so made an in comparative
merits of the candidates as
assessed by the Court, the High
Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction."
The above observation apply to the facts of present
case with full force.
In the instant case the selection of the appellant was
quashed by the Tribunal by finding fault with the award of
21 marks in viva voce to the appellant without assigning any
reasons. The selection of the appellant was not quashed on
any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the
circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and
is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is
hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal
for a fresh disposal on the other issue involved in the case
on merits in accordance with law and after hearing the
parties. No costs.