Dr. Rajasri Bhattacharya vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences issued an advertisement dated 28.12.2011 inviting applications for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistance Professor in various disciplines to be deployed at Units of the Institute.

One of the posts so advertised was the Assistant Professor in Bio-Chemistry. Three each were advertised for 6 Institutes, in all 18 were to be filled. The applicant is one of the 180 candidates who applied. The selection was through the process of interview and that was commenced on 18.04.2012.

A short list was prepared for three candidates against each post, i.e., 54 candidates, but the name of the applicant did not figure therein. 18 candidates in the top of the list were selected and issued orders of appointment. The applicant challenged the selection of 18 candidates who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 24 to 31. He contends that several candidates who did not hold the basic qualifications were considered and selected, and she furnished the particulars of respondent No.27 & 30. She contends that similar irregularities have taken place as regards large number of candidates and had the selection been conducted in an objective and fair manner, her name would have figured in the list of selected candidates.

The respondents filed individual counter affidavits. They denied the allegations made by the applicant and stated that once she did not figure in the short list of 54 candidates, the question of her finding fault with others does not arise. In counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is mentioned that selection of respondent Nos.27 & 30 was set aside and the selection of two more candidates was cancelled on account of the fact that they did not join the duties.

We heard Shri Manish Garg and Shri Vijay Saini, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri D. S. Mahendru, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri A. K. Behera, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Shri Ankit Khera for Shri Binay Kr. Pandey for respondent Nos. 2, 7 & 18.

The selection to the post of Assistant Professor is exclusively through the process of interview. The qualifications for the post are prescribed in the advertisement. The case of the applicant was considered on her being treated as qualified. A short list comprising the names of three candidates for each of the posts was prepared and even in that list, the name of the applicant did not figure.

The applicant was in a way, able to demonstrate that the respondent nos. 27 & 30 ought not to have been selected at all. In a different set of proceedings, their selection was set aside. The selection of two more candidates was also cancelled on account of their not joining the duties. However, the applicant does not stand any chance against these 4 resultant vacancies also, because she did not figure in the short list. It is the persons who are next in the list that stand to chance.

The applicant did not allege any malafides against the Board of Selection, nor did she mention any valid legal ground to convince us to set aside the entire selection. The mere fact that the applicant was not selected cannot be a ground to interfere with the selection. Further, when the selection is made on the basis of interview, we cannot peep into the mind of the selection committee. It has to be assumed that the committee has picked up the meritorious amongst the candidates that were interviewed. We do not find any merit in this OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.