Full Text
Judgement reserved on: 14^'' September, 2018
Judgmentpronounced on: IL__October, 2018 L.P.A. No. 158/2018
MANOJ KUMAR Appellant
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma,Advocate.
Through: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1 , andR-2.RespondentNo.3 in Person.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAT J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
2. Necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that appellant had applied for the post ofPrimary Teacher pursuant to a Vacancy Circular issued in March, 2016 by Deen Dayal Institute for Physically handicapped (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2), As per the Vacancy Circular, the selection procedure was through awritten test, after which eligible candidates were required to submit the requisite documents and thereafter, an interview was L.P.A. No.158/2018 „, Page 1 of[8] 2018:DHC:9228-DB to be held for the post in question. The interview was dispensed with vide Scheme for Allocation of marks in interview dated 27"" April, 2016 indicating the bifurcation of marks for selection on the basis of essential qualification, additional qualification, essential experience and written test.
3. Being aggrieved by the decision ofthe Respondent No. 1, whereby Respondent No.3 - Hemlata Bawa had been appointed to the post inquestion, despite the Appellant having secured more marks in the written examination and also having superior educational qualification than Respondent No.3, Appellant herein filed the W.P.(C) No.5279/2017, challenging the said appointment which was dismissed. The order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5279/2017 is impugned before us.
4. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Respondent No.2 had introduced a scheme for allocation of marks for interview, which was notified on 27.04.2016. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contended that the Appellant has not been allotted marks for his post graduation degree as per the scheme for allocation ofmarks. It is further contended that the dicta in UGC iSc Anr. V. Neha Anil Bobde reported in (2013) 10 SCC 519 has no application in the present case as the Respondent No.2 had wrongly and arbitrarily applied the scheme of allocation of marks for interview against the appellant, which is against the principles ofnatural justice. L.P.A. No.I5S/20I[8] p„g^ 2of[8]
5. On the contrary Mr. Brijesh Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same does not call for any interference by this court. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 contends that as per the Vacancy Circular, Respondent No.2 was well within his rights to short list candidates in the manner considered appropriate. Learned Counsel for, Respondent No.2 further contends that a Result Drafting Committee was constituted by Respondent No. 2 owing to the numerous applications received for the post in question. The said committee decided that marks for additional qualification shall only be given to candidates holding additional qualification in the relevant field. Learned Counsel for RespondentNo.2 further contendedthat as per the committee the M.Ed qualification possessed by Respondent No.3 was considered to be relevant for the primary teacher post thus. Respondent No.3 was given.[7] marks for her additional qualification.
6. Respondent No.3 who appears in person adopts the arguments made by the Counsel for Respondent No.2 and sought dismissal of the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the relevant documents annexed with the writ petition and the appeal.
8. Before delving into the arguments raised by counsels for the parties we deem it appropriate to reproduce the Scheme for Allocation of L.P.A. No.158/2018 Page 3 of[8]
9. marks dated 27.04.2016, which indicates that instead of interview, marks for additional qualifications would be provided, relevant portion ofthe same has beenreproduced hereinafter:- SI. Particulars Marks
1. Marks for essential Qualification (Maximum) 20 Up to 50% 4 50% to 60% 8 60% to 70% 12 -70% to 80% 16 Above 80% 20
2. Marks for additional Qualifications (Maximum^ 10 PG Diploma. 5 PG Degree 6 M.Phil/professional Qualification in the field 7 Ph.D 10
3. Marks for essential Experience 20
4. Writtentest (Objective/ MultipleChoice Question) Total Marks 100 We also deem it appropriate to reproduce the merit list issued by Respondent No.2, -^vhich provides the provisional result for the post in question. The list was drawn oh the basis of aggregate of marks attained by candidates for their essential qualification, additional qualification, essential experience and written examination. The same has been reproduced hereinafter:s. Name Roll No. Categ Marks Marks for Marks for Marks Marks Total No -ory for additional Essential for total for Essential qualification experience academic written qualifica qua exam -tion A B C D E F G H I J
I. Hemalata Bawa 161900[3] SC 16 7 0 23 33.25 58.25
2. Nitin Nirwal 161901[4] SC 20 0 4 24 33.75 57.75
3. Manoj Kumar 161904[9] SC 16 • 0 10 26 31.[5] 57.[5]
4. Sumit Kr. Singh 161910[5] sc 12 0 0 12 37.[5] 49.[5]
5. • Jitendra 161902[4] SC 12 0 0 12 36.25 48.25 L.P.A. No. 158/2018 Page 4 of[8] L.-
6. Roshan K.r. 161900[8] SC 20 0 0 20 27.[5] 47.[5]
7. Kapil 161902[1] SC 20 0 0 20 26.25 46.25
8. Kalpana I6I9103 SC 08 0 12 20 26 46
9. Preeti I6I9061 SC 20 0 3 23 22.[5] 45.[5]
10. Nidhi Tomar 161905[3] SC 16 0 4 20 24.[5] 44.[5]
11. Shruti Tomar 161906[7] SC 16 0 4 20 24 44
12. Ramesh Bairwa 161901[2] SC 16 0 0 16 27 43
13. Kapil 161905[7] SC 08 0 0 08 32.[5] 40.[5]
10. From the perusal of the Scheme for Allocation of marks, we find that allocation of marks for selection of candidates was in relation to marks for their essential qualification, additional qualification, essential experience and marks attained by the candidates in the written test. In case of additional qualification maximum marks i.e. 10 could only be allotted to the candidates having superior education qualificadon of Phd. whereas 7 marks were to be allotted to the candidates possessing M.Phil/Professional qualification in the field.
11. Counsel forthe Appellant labored hardon the pointthat,he is better qualified than Respondent No.3, because he would have secured more marks than Respondent No.3 if he was awarded 6 marks for his post graduate qualification. This contention was refuted by Respondent No.2 in their counter affidavit filed during the Writ Proceeding on the premise that decision ofRespondent NO. 2 regarding eligibility of candidates was final and further the fulfillment of condition of minimum qualification did not necessarily entitle the appellant for being recruited. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 had allotted additional marks only to the candidates having additional qualification in the relevant field. This submission was not specifically denied by the Appellant in L.P.A. No. 158/2018 Page 5 of[8] to their Rejoinder Affidavit during the writ proceedings and is deemed to have been accepted by the Appellant.
12. On perusal of the aforementioned merit list issued by Respondent No.2, we find that in the merit list Respondent No.3- Hemlata Bawa holds the first position with 58.25 marks, Mr. Nitin Nirwal holds the second position with 57.75. marks, and the Appellant herein ranks third with 57.[5] marks. Even otherwise if we agree with the arguments raised by Counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant still would have failed to succeed in getting an appointmentas Mr. Nitin Nirwal has secured has secured more marks than the Appellant and he hasnot been made a party inthepresent proceedings.
13. We also deem it appropriate to reproduce clause 14 and 19 of the Vacancy Circular "14.Decision of the institute in all matters regarding eligibility of the candidate, the stages at which such scrutiny of eligibility is to be undertaken, the documents to be producedfor the purpose of conduct ofinterview, selection andany other matter relating to recruitment will befinal and bindingon the candidate. Further, the institute reserves the right to stall / cancel the recruitmentpartially /fully at any stage during the recruitment process at its discretion, which will be final and binding on the candidate."
oflarge number ofapplications, Institute reserves the right to short-list applications in any manner as may be considered appropriate andno reasonfor rejection shall be communicated and no claim for refund offee shall be entertained in any case. L.P.A. No.158/2018 Page 6of[8]
14. From the perusal of extracted clauses, it is evident that Respondent No.2 was well within his right to short list the candidates in the manner considered appropriate and decision of Respondent No.2 in all matters regarding eligibility of the candidate relating to recruitment was to be final and binding on the candidates. Impliedly the decision of the committee, pertaining to allocation of additional marks, remains purely an administrative decision.
15. The Apex court in the case ofNeha AnilBobde (Supra), while heavily deahng with the issue of limitation of courts in policy matters has held as under:- "29.We are of the view that in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provision, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands offsince those issuesfall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao IR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and •Rajbir Singh Dala v. Chaudhary Devi Lai University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem theyface, than the Courts generally are"
16. The Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Education Dept., Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., reported at (1980) 3 SCC 97, and L,P,A, No,158/2018 Page 7of[8] All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors. reported at (2009) 11 SCC 726 has reiterated that in academic matters, the interference of courts should be minimum.
17. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Ld. Single Judge.
18. The appeal isdismissed accordingly. SANGIJ^mNJfRA SEHGAL, J. ^ G,S. SISTANI, J. OCTOBER^^,2018 gr// L.P.A. No.158/2018 „ „ Page 8 of[8]