Kuldip
Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors [1997] INSC 435 (11 April 1997)
A.S.
ANAND, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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.
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2