Charumati S. Khandare vs National School of Drama and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging two selection processes. First selection process was pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.7.2012 for appointment of three artists. The second selection process is in terms of the advertisement dated 13.4.2013 for one artist and which process is still not complete. Appointments as per the first advertisement of three artists, and for one artist as per the second advertisement has to take place in the Theatre in Education Company (T.I.E. Company), a unit of respondent no. 1-National School of Drama. So far as the challenge laid by the petitioner to the recruitment process initiated in terms of the advertisement dated 1.7.2012, and which stands concluded in terms of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 25/26/27.7.2012, the writ petition, in my opinion is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition has been filed on 18.7.2013 i.e. well after the conclusion of the Selection Committee Meeting in July, 2012, and for which, appointments of three artists have already been made in August, 2012 even as per the statement of the petitioner made before me. In April, 2013 after vested rights have accrued in favour of the three selected persons, and who were selected out of 40 persons, these rights cannot be disturbed at this late stage by setting aside their appointments.

Even assuming that the writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, then, so far as appointments of three artists made in T.I.E. Company pursuant to the Selection Committee Meeting on 25/26/27.7.2012, there is no substance in any of the two arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to contend that she was wrongly not selected.

The first contention of the petitioner is that selection of the first two persons (out of the three selected) namely Mr. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel as artists in T.I.E. Company is bad because these persons did not have the requisite experience as stated in the advertisement dated 1.7.2012. In order to examine this argument, let us see what was the requirement in advertisement and what are the qualifications of Mr. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel. Following are the essential qualifications which were required in terms of the advertisement.

Essential Qualification

Graduate of National School of Drama or a recognized Theatre Training Institute or a degree/diploma in education/child development/psychology from a recognized Institution or long experience of acting, designing, composing music, writing and teaching or working with children in threatre.

Ability to relate to children.

The relevant qualifications of Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel are as under and which are so stated in the writ petition:-

In my opinion, when we compare the requirements as stated in the advertisement of having experience in acting, designing, composing music, writing and teaching or working with students in theatre, it cannot be said that Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel did not have requisite qualifications. The requisite qualifications are reproduced above and it cannot be said that the experiences as stated of Sh. Kanhaya Lal Rathore and Ms. Sheel are not in terms of the essential qualifications required in the advertisement. I may state that the requirement of an artist and experience of such an artist is essentially subjective and objective as per the assessment of the members of the Selection Committee. It is subjective because the job of an artist is not a job of mathematician which can be logically examined. An artist performs a job which is a fine art, and therefore, the type of experience and the qualifications in such aspects are best left to be decided as per the judgment of the Selection Committee, and which in this case was comprised of as many as 8 persons. Even if we remove the respondent no. 2 namely Mr. Abdul Latif Khatana from the panel, thereafter there were 7 other persons who selected the 3 artists out of 40 persons who appeared for the interview and the petitioner was one of the 40 persons. This Court would not like to substitute its opinion for that of a Selection Committee in a case where the selection has to be of an artist in a drama company. The first argument therefore urged on behalf of the petitioner does not have merit and is rejected accordingly.

The second argument which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Selection Committee was biased against the petitioner because the Selection Committee comprised of the respondent no. 2 who had grievance against the petitioner because of the principled stand taken by the petitioner and complaint made by her against the respondent no. 2. Without in any manner commenting upon the validity or otherwise of the issues which the petitioner has against the respondent no. 2, it may be stated that there were 7 other members in the Selection Committee and therefore, I do not think that only one person namely respondent no. 2 (who was only a member and not the chairman) can have such effect so as to unsettle the views of as many as 7 other Selection Committee members.

In fact, there is additional reason as to why respondent no. 2''s presence in the Selection Committee cannot entitle the petitioner to quash the entire selection process because after selecting 3 persons as artists, a waiting list of 7 other persons was drawn up. Petitioner''s name in fact does not even appear in the list of 7 persons in the waiting list. I do not think that in a case such as the present where petitioner is not even in the waiting list of 7 candidates, she can seek cancellation of the entire selection process merely because respondent no. 2 was a member of the Selection Committee. Also, as already stated above, besides the 3 successful candidates, and the petitioner, there were 36 persons who appeared in the interview and who were not selected. There is no list before me that where the petitioner stands with respect to those 36 persons inasmuch as petitioner does not even appear in the waiting list of 7 persons. I therefore do not think that in a case such as the present, petitioner can claim that she was entitled to be selected because she was better than the persons who were selected or the 7 persons out of the 36 persons who were put in the waiting list. Who is better and who is not, is surely not for the petitioner to decide, but was of the Selection Committee, and which Selection Committee comprised of 7 other persons besides the respondent no. 2. Therefore, looking at issue from this point of view also, petitioner cannot seek cancellation of the selection process, much less she can claim entitlement of her being appointed to the post of an artist.

So far as the challenge to recruitment initiated by the advertisement dated 13.4.2013 is concerned, two points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner. First point is that for the appointment to the post of artist, the respondent no. 1 has two separate recruitment rules, and which cannot be inasmuch as petitioner contends that respondent no. 1 cannot pick and choose any rule at its convenience out of two recruitment rules. The second argument which is urged is that respondent no. 2 should not be a part of the Selection Committee for selecting of one artist, the post of which has been advertised vide advertisement dated 13.4.2013.

So far as the first argument is concerned, I have taken note of the statement made on behalf of respondent no. 1 that there are two separate wings or units performing different functions in the respondent no. 1/National School of Drama and thus there are separate recruitment rules for the separate wings/units having different roles/functions and different works require employees with separate/different qualifications although the post of artist is the same. One wing is the Theatre in Education Company (T.I.E. company) and other is Repertory Company and thus both wings performing different functions in the respondent no. 1, have therefore separate recruitment rules for employing of artist in the separate wings. Petitioner has filed the two recruitment rules from pages 30 to 33 of the petition, and the said two recruitment rules, one at pages 30 and 31 and second is at pages 32 and 33, themselves show that whereas the first recruitment rule at page 30-31 is for the T.I.E. Company, the second recruitment rule from pages 32-33 is for ''A Grade'' group i.e. different than T.I.E. company wing/unit. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner is justified in contending that there are two different recruitment rules for the same post, because the separate recruitment rules are for the separate wings of the respondent no. 1 and which wings perform separate functions. There is therefore nothing illegal in treating unequal persons unequally. Petitioner could have been successful in contending discrimination for the T.I.E. company only when artists are being appointed therein as per two separate recruitment rules of the T.I.E. company, but that is not the factual position. Therefore, I reject the contention on behalf of the petitioner that recruitment of artists are taking place as per the two separate recruitment rules.

That leaves us with the argument that respondent no. 2 should not be part of the Selection Committee which will make the recommendation for selecting of one artist whose post has been advertised as per the advertisement dated 13.4.2013. To this aspect, I need not dwell in any detail because counsel for respondent no. 1 has been more than fair in agreeing that whenever the case of the petitioner comes up in the interview before the Selection Committee, the respondent no. 2 will not be a part of the Selection Committee or if he is part of the Selection Committee he will recuse himself so far as the interview process of the petitioner is concerned by not being a member of the Selection Committee for the petitioner''s consideration.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. At this stage after dictating of the judgment, I must mention that most unfortunately both the petitioner and her counsel have made unfortunate remarks that there is injustice and they do not expect anything else from the Court. This is a fit case for issuing contempt against both petitioner as well as her counsel, however, unfortunately Courts are expected to have larger than usual heart and avoid any response to a passionate situation. It is only for this reason that I am not issuing contempt proceedings but I put on judicial record that conduct of both the petitioner and her counsel is to be highly deprecated.