Service Law – Appointment – Appellant appointed as Junior Lab Technician in the first respondent-Institute – Challenged by third respondent – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge – Appeal allowed by Division Bench – Held: Marks awarded to the third respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee – No mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee – Selection list not challenged by respondent – His only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected since he was more meritorious as he had better qualifying marks – Thus, determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine whether the appellant’s selection was arbitrary was erroneous – Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in the writ petition – Constitution of India – Article
226. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The third respondent did not challenge the entire selection list dated 20 April 2009. He challenged the appellant’s selection and sought a direction for his appointment in place of the appellant. The third respondent did not challenge the entire selection since he and the appellant had applied under the same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. The basis of the claim of the third respondent to the post was that since he had secured higher marks as compared to the appellant in the qualifying examination in the Lab Technician’s course, he ought to have been selected for the post. It was in the writ appeal that the third respondent challenged the selection criteria of allotting marks for experience and the interview. [Para 13][1153-D-E; 1154-A]
1.2 Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to the third respondent and the appellant by the Selection Committee for experience and at the interview, it is necessary to refer to the criteria for allocation of marks devised by the Selection Committee. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Committee state that the committee resolved to give proportionate weightage to the length of the service, with special preference to those candidates who have worked in government medical colleges. For the selection to the post of a ‘Junior Lab Technician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination were assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks were allotted to experience. Five marks were allotted for the personality of the candidate, as adjudged in the interview. The Selection Committee laid down two yardsticks for provision of marks for experience: (a) length of work experience of the candidate; and
(b) preference would be given to those who had worked in teaching hospitals of government / autonomous medical colleges. The rationale of the Selection Committee on differentiating between work experience in a private and government institute was that those who had worked in a government institute would be more suitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditions owing to the fact that the first respondent is a government medical institution. It is in this background that this Court needs to determine whether the marks allotted to the appellant in the category of experience and personality are arbitrary. The appellant at the time of submitting the application had a one year work experience in Babuji Medical College, Devanagere (a private institution) and three years of work experience with the first respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time of the application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctor who was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant have more years of work experience, he had work experience in a governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee. On a comparison of the marks allotted to both the candidates with reference to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee. [Paras 15, 16][1155-B-H; 1156-A]
1.3 The respondent had not challenged the selection list or the inclusion of the experience and the interview component for the determination of the merit list in the Writ Petition but had only sought his appointment within the criteria prescribed. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant on two grounds. First, the marks provided for candidates at the interview and for experience category were held to be arbitrary. To arrive at this conclusion, the Division Bench referred to the entire select list and found alleged discrepancies in the allotment of the marks for experience and a pattern where all the selected candidates were given higher marks for experience and at the interview. Second, the Division Bench held that the advertisement issued by the first respondent did not mention the criterion of work experience but only provided the minimum educational qualifications. Thus, it held that the rules of the game were changed after the process had started. The appointment of the appellant was set aside by the Division Bench by finding that the additional selection criteria devised and the marks provided in those criteria were arbitrary. As observed earlier, the selection list was not challenged by the respondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had better qualifying marks. Therefore, determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary was erroneous as the Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in the writ petition. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka is set aside. [Paras 19-21]
Nagraj v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Science Decision of Karnataka High Court in WP Nos. 6275862760/2009 – referred to. K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC
512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025;
Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 774 : [2014] 4 SCR 625 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.