Durga Devi
& ANR Vs. State of H.P. & Ors [1997] INSC 432 (11 April 1997)
A.S.
ANAND, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
Present:
Hon'ble
Dr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas J.S. Attri and Devendra Singh, Advs. for the
appellants 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
appellants were appointed as Voluntary Teachers on tenure basis under the
Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No.4 challenged their
appointment inter alia on the ground that he was academically more meritorious
than the appellants and therefore the selection Committee was not justified in
preferring the appellants to him. The State Administrative Tribunal Allowed the
application filed by Respondent No.4 and quashed the selection of the
appellants by itself judging the comparative merits of the candidates. The
appellants have put that order of the state Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.
Mahajan
etc. etc. (AIR 1990 SC 434) while dealing with some what an 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 candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular
post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which
has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise . The
decision of the Selection Committee can be 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 had 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 and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called
comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court
went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." In the instant case, as would
be seen from the perusal of the impugned order, the selection of the appellants
has been quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinising the comparative merits
of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was Sitting as an
appellate authority over the selection Committee. The selection of the
candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in
arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the
candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was
the function of the selection committee. The observation of this Court in Dalapt
Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra ) are squarely attracted to the facts of the
present case. 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 quashed and the matter is
remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on other points in accordance
with the law after hearing the parties.
We are
informed that both the appellants and the contesting respondent are in service.
They shall not be disturbed till the matter is finally disposed of by the
Tribunal.
The
appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2