Dr. Sanjeev Handa vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and Another

R.L. Anand, J.—By this judgment, I dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No. 12959 of 2000 and 4949 of 2001 (Dr. Sanjeev Handa v. Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and another) as, in the opinion of this Court, both the writ petitions can be

disposed of by a common judgment. Virtually, Civil Writ Petition No. 4949 of 2001 is in continuation of the earlier Civil Writ Petition No. 12959

of 2000.

In C.W.P. No. 4949 of 2001 the petitioner Sanjeev Handa has sought directions of this Court for setting aside the order dated 29th

September, 2000 vide which he was declared unfit for promotion to the post of Associate Professor under the Assessment Promotion Scheme.

The petitioner Dr. Handa had further made prayer in C.W.P. No. 4949 of 2001 that a declaration be given in his favour that he stood promoted as

Associate Professor w.e.f. 1st July, 1999 under the aforesaid Scheme.

The prayer of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 12959 of 2000 is that directions be issued to the respondents to consider him for promotion as

Associate Professor in the Department of Dermatology under the Assessment Promotion Scheme. In the opinion of this Court, C.W.P. No. 12959

of 2000 has become infructuous when the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor by the Standing Selection

Committee which held its meeting on 29.9.2000 but, any way, I will give the back-drop of the facts of both the writ petitions in order to appreciate

the controversy involved in C.W.P. No. 4949 of 2001.

The petitioner passed his M.B.B.S degree in December, 1986 from Government Medical College, Punjabi University, Patiala and he obtained

the Post Graduate Degree in Dermatology iii December, 1990 from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh

(in short ''P.G.I.''). In the year 1993 he was appointed as a Senior Resident, on which post he continued to work till 12th January, 1994. He was

appointed as Assistant Professor on adhoc basis in the Department of Dermatology on the basis of the Circular dated 9th December, 1993. It may

be mentioned here that this Circular was only a Notice Board advertisement and the principle of equality was never adopted. The other eligible

persons were never given the chance to compete for the post of Assistant Professor on adhoc basis in pursuance of the Circular dated 9th

December, 1993. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor on the basis of the Circular, dated 9th December, 1993, and he was

appointed for a period of three months vide appointment letter dated 4th January, 1994. He continued to work as such till 10th February, 1995

when the petitioner was granted extension from time to time. Again the post of Assistant Professor was advertised inviting applications in the month

of September, 1994 and in pursuance of this regular advertisement the petitioner applied. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the

petitioner for appointment as Assistant Professor of the Dermatology Department and the appointment letter was issued where he joined on 11th

February, 1995. Subsequently on 11th October, 1999, the P.G.I, invited applications for filing the posts of Assistant Professors in the subject of

Dermatology. Again the petitioner applied for the said post and he was appointed this time on regular basis on 10th December, 1999 and he

joined the Department on the same day. In order to remove the stagnation in the promotion, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. M.L.

Dhar was constituted for rationalisation of pay structure and career prospect in respect of the faculty members of All India Institute of Medical

Sciences, New Delhi and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. This report was accepted and it was

recommended that on completion of five years in the grade, the Assistant Professor shall be eligible for promotion as Associate Professor under

the said Scheme. Subsequently, on 24th April, 1992 a new Assessment Promotion Scheme came into force and as per Clause 3 of the said

Scheme ""the eligibility for assessment promotion"", it was contemplated that Assistant Professor with four years experience will be eligible for

consideration for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.

The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. In C.W.P.No. 12959 of 2000 the case set up by the petitioner is that since he is working in the

department w.e.f. 9th December, 1993 and that his second appointment dated llth February, 1995 was in pursuance of the regular advertisement,

therefore, he becomes eligible to be considered for selection to the post of Associate Professor on the expiry of the four years and this period

should be reckoned with effect from 11th February, 1995 when he joined as Assistant Professor though on ad hoc basis,

On the contrary, the stand of the P.G.I, was that the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis w.e.f. 11th February, 1995 could not be

considered for eligibility as the petitioner joined on regular basis on 10th December, 1999 and, therefore, he was not eligible to be considered for

selection to the post of Associate Professor.

Under orders dated 22nd September, 2000, of the Division Bench comprising of Hon''ble Mr. Justice K.S. Kumaran and Hon''ble Mr. Justice

N.K. Sud, directions were given to the P.G.I, authorities to call the petitioner for interview at his own risk and subject to the result of the writ

petition. Resultantly, the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee which took the assistance of the expert members, and ultimately it

was decided that Dr. Sanjeev Handa could not be selected. The exact recommendation of the Selection Committee is as follows :

Dr. Sanjeev Handa was not selected

This observation was made by seven members out of nine as two members Professor V. Kanagaraj and Professor K.N. Pathak were not

present in the process of selection. As I stated above, this C.W.P. No. 12959 of 2000 has virtually become infructuous because the chance was

given to the petitioner for interview, but unfortunately he could not come to the expectation of the selection committee and therefore, he was not

selected. So, I will not go into the question whether the period from 11th February, 1995 should be considered for his eligibility to be interviewed

or not.

I have heard Shri Hemant Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Anil Malhotra learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the P.G.I, and with their assistance, have gone through the record of this case.

Now the sole point which survives for determination is whether the rejection of the petitioner as aforesaid, is bad and should be set aside or

not?

Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor. It is a time bound promotional scheme. The mode of selection provides that

the assessment of both the level i.e. for promotion of Lecturers to Assistant Professors and Assistant Professors to Associate /Professors should

be made by the Standing Selection Committee with the assistance of experts in the respective speciality"". The Assessment Promotion Scheme

further provides that ""100% Assistant Professprs with four years of service be considered for promotion as Associate Professor each year without

linkage to the vacancies in the grade of Associate Professors"". The Assessment Process is incorporated in Clause 10 which runs as follows:

The Assessment Board shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Head of the Department unit. The performance of the Faculty

members with reference to annual confidential reports and his fitness for promotion to the next higher grade. However, the Board may consider in

absentia the candidature of such faculty members as are unable to present themselves for interview.

Thus, the reading of the assessment criteria lays down three things: (1) that the assessment Board i.e. Selection Committee will take into

consideration the recommendation of the Head of the Department Unit: (2) the performance of the faculty members with reference to annual

confidential report and (3) fitness for promotion to the next higher grade. Three things must come together. If a candidate is lacking even any one

criteria, he cannot be recommended for promotion to the post of Associate Professor or Professor as the case may be.

The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Selection Committee associated the expert membeRs. They were internal and

External experts. The petitioner throughout had a bright career. He was duly recommended by the Head of the Department Unit. His annual

confidential reports were always good and yet the members of the Selection Committee were totally biased against the petitioner as they were bent

upon to declare the petitioner unfit because the petitioner sought the interview against the wish of the authorities of the PGI when he obtained the

interim orders the Hon''ble Division Bench directing the Selection Committee to interview the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the

observations made by the members of the Standing Selection Committee that ""Dr. Sanjiv Handa was not selected"" show non-application of mind.

The counsel even went on saying to the extent that the PGI authorities has withheld the recommendation of the expert members and, therefore, an

adverse inference should be drawn against them. Before declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, there must

be some reasons which should be given by the Standing Selection Committee.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-PGI submitted that the Selection Committee associated the

internal and external Expert MembeRs. Professor R.P. Pandhi was the external Expert Member whereas Professor Bhushan Kumar was internal

Expert Member. The Selection Committee must have taken into consideration the views of these two expert members and thereafter formulated

the opinion that the petitioner Dr. Sanjiv Handa was unfit. I have seen the original minutes of the meeting which was produced before me by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-PGI which would show that the petitioner was not the only candidate who was declared

unit but one Dr. Yaddanapudi Lakshminarayan whose name is at Serial No. 3 was also declared unfit out of 23 candidates who were interviewed

on that day.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the promotion to the post of Associate Professor is automatic and rightly too because I have further

scanned the minutes of the meeting vide which the Associate Professor were to be recommended to the post of Additional Professor and one Dr.

Ravinder Sialy was declared unfit to be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Professor. Thus, we can say that promotion as

Associate Professor or Additional Professor is not a matter of right or automatic as one has to go through the process of selection of the Selection

Committee which is assisted by internal and external expert members on the subject/discipline. No bias has been alleged by the petitioner against

any of the members of the Selection Committee.

The next question for determination is whether it is obligatory on the part of the members of the Selection Committee to give reasons why a

particular candidate has been declared fit or unfit or has been selected or rejected. The answer of this Court is in the negative. The selection

process is comprised of very highly qualified members of eminance. The process of selection is by way of interview assisted by experts membeRs.

A mental note is always kept by the members of the selection committee with regard to the performance of an individual candidate. I am not in a

position to hold that the members were biased against the petitioner or that they had formulated an opinion against the petitioner that he would not

be selected for the post of Associate Professor as he had approached the law court for the redressal of his grievance. Irrespective of the fact that

the petitioner might have been recommended or his annual confidential reports might be very good does not give him the automatic right of

selection until and unless he is cleared by the Selection Committee regarding his fitness to be promoted to the post of Associate Professor. Taking

the best case for the petitioner that the two expert members (Internal and External) might have recommended the case of the petitioner for

Associate Professor, still the members of the Selection Committee are not bound toe the line of the expert membeRs. They can formulate their own

opinion with regard to performance of any candidate but, in the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest even remotely, that Internal

and External Expert Members had recommended the case of the petitioner for selection, rather the minutes of the meeting would show that the

Selection Committee did take info consideration the views which might have been expressed by the Internal and External Expert MembeRs. In

spite of all, the petitioner was not declared fit and he was rejected.

It has been held in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, 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. In the present case nothing

has come on record from which I will be able to make assessment that the selection committee had committed any illegality or material irregularity

or there was any proven mala fides against the membeRs. Similar is the opinion of the Hon''ble Division Bench in Shakuntla Devi v. Kurukshetra

University 1997(1) R.S.J. 274 wherein it was held that once the assessment of the relative merit of the candidates has been made by the Selection

Committee, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion and the process cannot be questioned to be unfair after participation. The candidate has

only right of participation in the selection and to be considered for selection. My attention was also invited to State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ishar

Singh and Others, wherein it was held that adhoc service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. I have gone through this question. I have

already said that the case of the petitioner does not improve even after he was given the chance in interview.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invited my attention to Osmania University represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad, A.P. Vs.

Abdul Rayees Khan and Another, in which it was held that the Courts should be slow to interfere in academic selections made objectively by

experts after following the prescribed procedure. Also it was held that objectively depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and no

absolute rule can be laid down in this regard. In my opinion, this judgment goes against the petitioner. I have to see whether there is a dispassionate

and objective selection and my answer is in the affirmative. There is no basis for me to reach a conclusion that the rejection of the petitioner was

arbitrary, bias or with tainted glasses. 19. Thus, having examined this case from every angle of vision, I am of the considered opinion that both the

writ petitions deserves to be dismissed. C.W.P.No. 12959 of 2000 is dismissed as infructuous and C.W.P. No. 4949 of 2001 is dismissed as it

totally lack merit. No orders as to costs.