AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
554 paragraphs · 5,645 wordsDev Darshan Sud,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the selection of the three Respondents to the post of Director of Research, Director of Extension Education and Dean, College of Horticulture.
The allegations made by the Petitioner are that after passing his Ph.D. in the specialization of Fruit Pathology from Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, Solan, in the year 1987, he joined as Assistant Professor in the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur in the year 1988 and was thereafter selected as Assistant Professor in Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan. The Petitioner pleads that he has experience of working on more than 23 different Projects and was the most suitable candidate but in his case the mandatory statutory conditions of eligibility and selection criteria have been violated to his disadvantage.
It is undisputed that vide advertisement Annexure P-2, applications for a number of posts were invited including those of Director of Research, Director of Extension Education and Dean, College of Horticulture. The qualifications prescribed were:
�1.
Director of Research
(i)
Ph.D. degree or its equivalent in Horticulture/Forestry or in their allied science.
(ii)
10 years� teaching/researchexperience in a relevant field out of which at least 5 years� experience shouldbe as Professor or equivalent rank.
(iii)
A significant contribution and accomplishment in the field of research/teaching/extension education as evidenced by publication/articles in a journal of repute.
(iv)
Ability to organize,supervise and coordinate research in the field of horticulture, forestry and allied Sciences.
2.
Director of Extension Education
(i)
Ph.D degree or its equivalent in Horticulture/Forestry or in their allied science.
(ii)
10 years� teaching/researchexperience in a relevant field out of which at least 5 years� experience shouldbe as Professor or equivalent rank.
(iii)
A significant contribution and accomplishment in the field of research/teaching/extension education as evidenced by publication/articles in a journal of repute.
(iv)
Ability to organize,supervise and coordiate research in the field of horticulture, forestry and allied Sciences.
(v)
He/She should preferably beconversant with the conditions of Horticulture and silvi-Horticulture practices of Himachal Pradesh.
3.
Dean College of Horticulture
(i)
Ph.D degree or its equivalent in Horticulture/Forestry or in their allied science.
(ii)
10 years� teaching/researchexperience in a relevant field out of which at least 5 years experience should beas Professor or equivalentrank.
(iii)
A significant contribution and accomplishment in the field of research/teaching/extension education as evidenced bypublication/articles in a journal of repute.�
These, according to the Petitioner, were in concord with the Act and Statutes of the University beyond which no other conditions or procedure could be prescribed/stipulated.
Petitioner submits that it was only about half an hour before the interview that Annexure P-3, detailing the criteria on the basis of which marks would be allocated/awarded to judge the suitability of the incumbents, was distributed amongst the candidates.
According to Annexure P-3, the suitability of each candidate was to be judged by allocation of marks as provided therein, namely:
Sr.No.
Academic qualification
Marks
1.
Bachelor�s Degree
10
2.
Master�s Degree
15
3.
Ph.D Degree in relevant Subject
15
4.
Award Medals/ fellowship
05
5.
Experience
15
6.
Publication
(iii)Relevant to the post (iv) Quality of Publication (NAAS Rating)
5 10
7.
Innovative/specialachievements
05
8.
Total
80
In addition 20 marks were to be awarded for the interview.
The submission of the Petitioner is that Statutes 3.10 and 3.11 of Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the `Statutes'') provide the eligibility and criteria to be followed for selection/appointment of candidates to these three posts and there can be no variation of any kind whatsoever unless it is introduced by amendment in accordance with law. The Petitioner submits that Annexure P-3 is ultra vires the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'') and the Statutes. The Respondents and more especially Respondent No. 3, do not possess the basic eligibility qualifications for being considered/selected and Annexure P-4, criteria devised by the Board of Management and approved vide its 76th Meeting hold on 4.2.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) for evaluating the suitability of the candidates, is ultra vires the Statutes and constitutes an amendment carried out in Statute 3.10 and 3.11 without following the mandatory requirement of the Act and Statutes. Learned Counsel submits that the conditions stipulated in Statute 3.11 prescribing the qualifications for the appointment of Dean, Director of Research, and Director of Extension Education have been incorporated verbatim in the advertisement and there can be no deviation.
Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court has been informed by Shri Onkar Jairath, learned consel appearing for the University, that Respondent No. 3 is no longer working with the University. It is only Respondent No. 2 whose case has to be considered as Respondent No. 4, Dr. D.R. Gautam, has left the University and sought employment elsewhere. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submit that any adjudication so far their appointment is concerned, would only be academic as no effective order would/can be passed against them at this stage. Since the overall legality of the selection procedure is being adjudicated, their cases would also be considered though no order will be passed or can be passed against them.
The writ petition has been resisted by the Respondents on a number of grounds. One important point urged by Respondent No. 1-University is that the Petitioner, having participated without protest in the entire selection process, cannot now turn around and challenge its legality, validity and constitutionality only because he has been unsuccessful. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4, urged that so far as the question of suitability for the post on the question of academic qualification is concerned, it is not open to the Petitioner to urge the same, as he and Respondent No. 2 possess the same academic qualifications and the Petitioner now cannot urge that he is better qualified.
Before considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the result in the tabular form of all the three candidates including the Petitioner may be considered:
(1) DEAN-COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE
Sr No
Name of
Candidate
Qualifications
Awar ds/ Meda ls/ Fell owsh ips
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
Publication
Innovati
ons/
Spec
ial
Achi
evem
ents
Pr
es
en
ta
ti
on
In
te
rv
ie
ws
Total
Marks
Bach
elor
�s
Degr
ee
Master�s
Degree
Ph.D.
Degre
e in
relev
ant
Subje
ct
Releva
nt to
the
Post
Quality
of
Publica
tions
Marks Assigned
(10)
(15)
(15)
(05)
15
(05)
(10)
(05)
(80)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
B.Sc
M.Sc
Ph.d
a.
Dr. Ramesh
Chand
5.92
11.70
12.00
-
15
2.00
10.0
-
3
11
70.62
b.
Dr. Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
11.29
-
10
5.00
9.00
2
2
9
65.35
(2) DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
Sr No
Name of
Candidate
Qualifications
Awar
ds/
Meda
ls/
Fell
owsh
ips
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
Publication
Innovati
ons/
Spec
ial
Achi
evem
ents
Pr
es
en
ta
ti
on
In
te
rv
ie
ws
Total
Marks
Bach
elor
�s
Degr
ee
Master�s
Degree
Ph.D.
Degre
e in
relev
ant
Subje
ct
Releva
nt to
the
Post
Quality
of
Publica
tions
Marks Assigned
(10)
(15)
(15)
(05)
15
(05)
(10)
(05)
(80)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
B.Sc
M.Sc
Ph.d
a.
Dr. Satish Kumar
5.78
11.79
13.00
5
15
10.00
1.5
3
11
75.47
b.
Dr. Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
11.28
-
10
14.00
2
3
10
67.35
(3) DIRECTOR EXTENSION EDUCATION
Sr No
Name of
Candidate
Qualifications
Awar
ds/
Meda
ls/
Fell
owsh
ips
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
Publication
Innovati
ons/
Spec
ial
Achi
evem
ents
Pr
es
en
ta
ti
on
In
te
rv
ie
ws
Total
Marks
Bach
elor
�s
Degr
ee
Master�s
Degree
Ph.D.
Degre
e in
relev
ant
Subje
ct
Releva
nt to
the
Post
Quality
of
Publica
tions
Marks Assigned
(10)
(15)
(15)
(05)
15
(05)
(10)
(05)
(80)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
B.Sc
M.Sc
Ph.d
a.
Dr. Dhani
Ram
6.64
11.73
11.82
1
15
2.00
8.00
3
4
11
74.19
b.
Dr. Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
11.29
-
10
5.00
9.00
2
3
9
67.35
These have been tabulated from the record made available by the University. Comparison of the performance of the Petitioner and the Respondents would show that there is a considerable difference/margin in marks between the Petitioner and the second Respondent in the overall score. On the question of allocation of separate marks for B. Sc. and M. Sc. which, according to the Petitioner, cannot be allocated by the University, the position which emerges is this:
Director of Research:
Name
B.Sc.
M.Sc.
Total
Difference
Dr.S.K.Sharma
5.78
11.19
16.97
Dr.Vijay leading by 0.10 marks
Dr.Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
17.07
Dean-College of Horticulture:
Name
B.Sc.
M.Sc.
Total
Difference
Dr.R.C.Sharma
5.92
11.70
17.62
Dr.R.C.Sharma leading by 0.55 marks
Dr.Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
17.07
Director Extension Education:
Name
B.Sc.
M.Sc.
Total
Difference
Dr.D.R. Gautam
6.64
11.73
18.37
Dr.Gautam leading by 1.3 marks�
Dr.Vijay Singh
6.36
10.71
17.07
Considering these two criterias, the difference at the highest is 1.3 in the case of Director of Extension Education, who has since retired, and lowest being 0.19 in the case of Director of Research. For the post of Director/Dean College of the Horticulture, the difference is 0.55. In case of Director of Research, the Petitioner in-fact gets 0.10 more marks under both these criterias, while against post of Dean, College of Horticulture, Respondent No. 2 is ahead by 0.55 marks and in Director of Extension Education, the selected candidate, got 1.3 more marks. So it is only two posts, namely; Dean of College of Horticulture and Director of Extension Education where the selected candidate is getting more marks which are very marginal. Even if these marks are excluded, it makes no difference to the over all assessment of the candidates which is based on overall evaluation of Ph.D degree, research contribution, interview etc. where the margin is large.
Adverting to the first submission made by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the criteria of Annexure P-4 is arbitrary and ultra vires the statutes of the University, this submission cannot be accepted. What the Statutes provide for is the basic minimum, educational qualifications. As noticed, statute 3.11 stipulates for (1) degree in Ph.D. or its equivalent in Horticulture/Forestry, (2) 10 years'' teaching/research experience in the relevant field out of which at least 5 years'' experience should be as Professor and (3) a significant contribution and accomplishment in the field of teaching/research/ extension education as evidenced by publications/ articles in a Journal of repute. The composition of the Selection Committee is that of the Vice Chancellor, three scientists or educationists, with experience of work in scientific, educational or administrative capacity from outside the University, two to be nominated by the Chancellor and one to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor-Members and one nominee of the ICAR as Member. The same criteria is provided for Director of Research and Director of Extension Education with this improvement that for the last post he will have 10 years teaching/research/extension education experience in relevant field out of which atleast 5 years'' experience should be as professor or equivalent rank.
It would be evident that the composition of the Selection Committee, which comprises of eminent scientists itself eliminates the element of bias. Adverting to the apportionment of marks, the University has stated in its reply that at the 76th meeting of the Board of Management held on 4.7.2008, the criteria was involved to eliminate the element of bias. In the essential conditions as prescribed by the statute, there was always an element of arbitrariness which could creep in while awarding marks only under these three/five broad heads and nothing else and therefore, the Board of Management took a decision that in order to put the selection beyond the pale of challenge of arbitrariness, the entire educational career profile should be considered and further sub divisions made for award of marks on the basis of educational qualifications research etc. of each of the candidates on a uniform basis spanning their entire career in detail. Learned Counsel Shri Onkar Jairath submits that the posts for which the selection were being made involved high academic/administrative responsibility which requires a consistently good performance in academic achievement for which purpose the entire educational/research career graph of a particular candidate is to be considered. He submits that there is no element of bias involved in this evaluation, as awarding of marks on the basis of academic achievement, can be judged objectively. The relevant extract of the meeting of the Board of Management, Annexure R-1, is given hereinunder:
SUPPELEMENTARY AGENDA
Item No. 13: To place before the Board of Management the Scorecards devised bythe University for evaluating the candidates for recruitment to the posts of Deans/ Directors, Professor/equivalent and Assistant Professor/ equivalent.
After detailed discussion, the Board of Management approved the proposed Scorecards devised by the University for evaluating the candidates for recruitment to the posts of Deans/Directors, Professor/Equivalent and Assistant Professor Equivalent with the observation that the marks for interview in all the three score Cards may not exceed 15 marks; and that 5 marks may be kept for Presentation by the candidates.
Learned Counsel submits that after the decision of the Supreme Court, striking down award of excessive marks on the basis of oral interview only this criterion was devised. He submits that the application forms required filling up of details of each candidate with respect to minute details. The entire educational profile was required to be detailed amongst other achievements. In these circumstances, it could not be urged that the candidates were taken by surprise immediately before the interview. It is undisputed before me that the detailed forms to be filled in were provided:
Dr.Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry SOLAN-173230
No. 004324
Application form for employment FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Advertisement No......... Date ....... Postal Order No......
Sr. No. of the post ................... Date.......... Amount ........
Application Form.... Complete/Incomplete Whether applicant called for interview Yes/No.
Post applied for:
Name in full (IN BLOCK LETTERS):
Father''s Name:
Date of Birth:
Place of birth and nativity (Distt.& State):
Present address to which communications Should be sent:
Permanent address:
Mother tongue:
Other languages known:
Whether belongs to SC/ST/Backward Class/E.S.M. If so attach certificate in support thereof:
Educational Qualifications, beginning with the High School Examination:
Sr. No.
Certificate/ Diploma or Degree obtained
Years of study
Class with % of marks obtaine d or Grade
Institution/ Board/ University
Field of Specialisati on
REMARKS
(Attach attested copies of certificates in support of each degree or diploma)
Experience regarding previous and present employment:
Sr.No.
Employer
Post held
Pay drawn with scale
Period of employoment From To
Y M D
(Attach separate sheet, if space is insufficient)
List of publications as per classification given below:
Sr.No.
Research articles
Books/Bulletins
Miscellaneous
(Attach separate sheet, if space is insufficient. Attach one copy of the reprints of papers published).
Are you willing to accept the Basic pay in the scale of post? If not, State the minimum pay acceptable giving justification:
Name foreign Countries visited with duration and purpose:
1.
2.
3.
4.
List three referees not related to you, who can certify your professional competence:
Sr.No.
Name
Address
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Any other information regarding experience etc.not covered above. If the space below is insufficient, the applicant may attach additional sheets.
I certify that the information furnished above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature List of enclosures: Name and designation of the applicant
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CANDIDATES
The application form should be filled in complete in all respects, giving corrects information. Defective and incomplete applications and those with wrong or false information will be rejected.
Any delay in sending the application throughproper channel is not the responsibility of the University. Advance copies of the application to reach the Registrar, Dr. Yashwant Singh ParmarUniversity of Horticulture and Forestry, PostOffice Nauni-173230, Distt. Solan, HimachalPradesh (India) within the prescribed time limitwill be entertained provided the originalforwarded through proper channel reaches theRegistrar before the candidate is called forinterview or "No Objection Certificate" from theemployer is produced at the time of interview.
Candidates may send copies of testimonials from person well acquainted with their work andcharacter. If a candidate names a referee who resides outside India, he should write to theperson direct and ask him to send hisrecommendation straight to the Registrar, Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University ofHorticulture and Forestry, Post Office Nauni-173230, Distt. Solan (H.P.) The report will betreated as confidential.
Candidates who fulfill the conditions to be the satisfaction of the University authorities shallbe required to appear for interview at theUniversity Headquarters, Nauni (Solan) or suchother place as may be decided by the University,at their own cost or at the expense of the University, if so decided.
The summoning of a candidate for interview ismerely an indication of his suitability for the post but not an assurance that he will berecommended or selected or that his conditionsspecified in the application accepted.
Separate applications are required for each post.
Posts/Designations of equivalent pay scale are inter-changeable with the University, at the discretion of the University.
The University reserves the right to fill up or not to be fill up any of the posts advertised.
Applicatins should reach the Office of the Registrar, Dr. Yashwant Singh parmar University ofHorticulture and Forestry, P.O. Nauni-173230,Distt. Solan (H.P.) before 5.00 p.m. on the duedate or the next working day, if the due datehappens to be a holiday.
Registrar, Dr. Yashwant Singh ParmarUniversity of Horticulture & Forestry P.O. NAUNI, Solan-173230.
I have gone through the form which requires replete details. Learned Counsel Shri Onkar Jairath submits that the advertisement was issued on 29th November, 2008 and the meeting of the Board of Management was held on 4th July, 2008 and in these circumstances it cannot be said that the criteria Annexure P-4 which is same as Annexure R-1 has been tailor made to suit a particular individual.
15.Learned Senior counsel Shri Chandel urges that (a) there is no authority vested with the Respondents to alter the conditions/essential qualifications as prescribed in Annexure P-2; (b) that Statute 3.11 has been amended by Annexure P-4 without following the necessary procedure for amendment of the statute including the concurrence of the Chancellor and as such, it cannot be implemented.
16.Considering first the question, as to whether the criteria provided is not in conformity with the statutes, submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted for the reasons that it does not change the basic minimum qualification(s) required for selection to the post in question and therefore Section 54 of the Act cannot be relied upon to urge that without following the necessary procedure, no amendment in the statute can be made. What Annexure P-4/R-1 provides is the method of assessment and not for the prescription of basic minimum qualification. Judging the academic career graph of a person from the graduation level, it can not be said to be to the disadvantage of a candidate, change of the basic eligibility criteria or in any manner providing for an additional criteria not contemplated by the statute. In-fact if Annexure P-4/R-1 is considered in detail it only reduces the element of arbitrariness.
17.It cannot be urged that Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 (as also annexure R-1) in any manner alter the basic conditions of eligibility or provide for different criteria for selection. Judging the entire academic career and profiling the candidate for selection on the basis of such achievement, cannot be said to be contrary to what has been provided in the Statutes.
Learned Counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.T. Bevin Katti, etc., Vs. Karnataka public Service Commission and others, holding that every candidate has a right for consideration and that no amendment can be made in the Rules, which retrospectively takes away the right of consideration. In particular, he refers to paragraph 11 of the judgment:
There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of ''Various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right the date of crystallizes on of advertisement, publication. conditions set out in the advertisement crystallises publication as on of his right the date of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that in District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, the Supreme Court rules that the conditions in the advertisement cannot be altered. The Court holds:
6... ... ..when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. the aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice... ... ... ....
Considering these two cases, I do not find that these support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has infact been considered and the selection criteria has not been diluted/altered.To that these support the case of the Petitioner.The Petitioner has infact been considered and the selection criteria has not been diluted/altered. repeat, it is only the evaluation criteria which is provided for by Annexure P-4. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, to urge that once the Rules have been framed, it is not open to the Selection Committee to devise its own criteria for selection.In particular learned Counsel refers to paragraphs 32 and 33 which reads:
In the instant case, the Government did neither issue any administrative instruction nor did it supply the omission with regard to the criteria on the basis of which suitability of the candidates was to be determined. The members of the Selection Board, of their own, decided to adopt the confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as Homeopathic Medical Officers, as the basis of determining their suitability.
The members of the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorised specifically in that regard by the Rules made under Article 309. It is basically the function of the rule making authority to provide the basis for selection.
In this case the Supreme Court was considering the selection to the posts of junior teachers for Orissa State Homoeopathic Medical Colleges for which Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India had been framed by the Government one ground of challenge was that the Selection Committee had introduced criteria of selection, dehors the Rules. The Court held that no administrative instructions altering the Rules can be followed and the selection had been made purely on the basis of the confidential character rolls of the candidates, instead of criteria provided for determining the suitability. The Court in that case discussed in detail the process of selection, considering the principles in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, and Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, The Court holds that merely prescribing assessment on the basis of confidential rolls was not a suitable criteria. I may add that Annexure P-4 has been passed by the Academic Council and was not something which was devised by the Selection Committee on its own that is dehors the fact that it is not an amendment to the Statutes but only detailing the manner in which marks are to be allotted under various heads. In the present case if this precedent is considered, it cannot be said that Annexure P-4 amends the rules in a manner which negatives the idea of objectivity. It also does not in any manner whittle down the condition of assessment made on the basis of educational qualification/ research as required by the Statute. The submission, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel refers to the decision of Supreme Court in Miss Shainda Hasan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, holding that the qualification once prescribed cannot later be changed/relaxed. I do not find that the conditions have infact been changed as urged.
22.Adverting to other submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the interview once he has appeared in it. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, holding:
Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. Thus the Petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the Petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a Petitioner.
To similar effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, holding:
Moreover, this is a case where the Petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination.The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there.The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that it was not possible to have filed any protest with the Interview Board and there was no option left with the Petitioner but to participate in the selection procedure. This submission by the Petitioner cannot be taken as an act of estoppel.
Adverting to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I hold that the Petitioner could not plead the element of surprise when Annexure P-3 was handed over to him, more especially when the application form calls upon and requires him to fill in every minor detail of his qualifications/career. When coupled with the fact that the qualifications of B. Sc. etc. were considered for evaluation the difference is not only marginal but very minimal, the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner requires to be rejected. In the overall assessment of marks, even if this difference is excluded the Petitioner cannot come anywhere near the selected candidate(s). The criteria for evaluation, in no way alters/amends the Statutes calling upon for an amendment by following the prescribed procedure in accordance with the Statutes and the Act. All the judgments relied upon, when considered in their entirety do not in any manner advance the case of the Petitioner as no change has been made either in the selection criteria or the advertisement. If the Petitioner did not wish to participate in the interview, he should have lodged a protest with the Board at the time when he appeared for the interview asking them not to evaluate/grant any marks to him on the basis of the educational qualifications of B. Sc. and M. Sc. But for the purposes of present petition I am not considering this to be a factor to be considered against the Petitioner since I hold that the petition requires to be dismissed on other grounds.
One last submission needs to be noticed that is turning to the educational qualification on the basis of which the Petitioner submits that Shri R.C. Sharma was ineligible to apply for the post. The record shows that both of them possess the same qualifications:
Sr No
Name of the Candidate
Educational Qualification
Specialization
1
Dr.Vijay Singh Thakur
Hr.Sec., B.Sc. M.Sc., Ph.D. Post Doc.
Plant Pathology Mycology & Plant Pathology -do- Hriteam, U.K.
2
Dr.R.C. Sharma
Hr.Sec. B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D.
Agriculture Plant Pathology Plant Pathology
27.Shri M.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel, submits that since the University at Nauni has been established solely for the purpose of Horticulture, Dr. R.C. Sharma, Respondent No. 2, cannot be considered for the post. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the University has been set up not only for Horticulture, but for number of other Disciplines also. Section 2(c) and (q) provides:
2(c) "agriculture" means the basic and applied sciences of soil and water management, crop production, home science, food science, agricultural engineering and technology, animal husbandry including veterinary and dairy science, fisheries, mushroom growing, bee-keeping, tea cultivation, sericulture, vegetables, social sciences and agricultural marketing, processing, co-operation, land use and management and economic and social uplift of the rural people.
(q) "horticulture" means the basic and applied sciences of fruits, vegetables, floriculture plantation crops, spices, hops and shall include mushroom growing, landscaping, bee-keeping, marketing and processing of horticultural produce.
According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, the University at Nauni is only Horticulture specific. This submission cannot be accepted as the University provides not only for Horticulture but also in its allied sciences including Forestry and other Science etc. This University provides courses in Biotechnology, Entomology and apiculture, Floriculture and Landscaping, Fruit Breeding and Genetic Resources, Fruit Culture and Orchard Management, Mycology and Plant Pathology, Post harvest Technology, Vegetable Crops, Basic Sciences, Economics, Sociology and Extension Education, Forest Biology and Tree Improvement, Forest Products and Utilization, Silviculture and Agro forestry and Soil Science and Water Management, Computer Sciences, Instrumentation Techniques and Library Science. In these circumstances, the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.