FAHIM AKHTAR AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â Â

Petitioners are having degrees in Civil Engineering (B. Tech). The Uttarakhand Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 2009

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), apparently, provide for recruitment to the post of Lecturers, who are to impart education in Government

Polytechnics. The complaint of the petitioners in this case is that the syllabus (which is produced as Annexure No. 3) does not contain questions,

which are relevant for the purpose of testing the knowledge of the persons, who are to be appointed as Lecturers. There is a case, inter alia, that

the Lecturers in the Government Polytechnics are to impart education to candidates, who will be granted Diploma in various Engineering branches and

they will be called as Junior Engineers. Subsequent thereto, they will be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. It is the further case that for

the purpose of imparting education to a Junior Engineer, the person imparting education should be competent and should be having thorough

knowledge in the field concerned. This knowledge can be checked only through a competitive examination, in which the skill of the candidates in the

field concerned can be checked. It is stated that the purpose would be frustrated if the knowledge, with reference to which, person’s eligibility

is concerned, is confined to Hindi, English and General Studies. On this basis, the petitioners, essentially, seek the following reliefs:

“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the syllabus framed by the respondent no. 2 (mentioned in annexure 3) for

the recruitment of Lecturers (Gazetted Group-B) post, so far as it is concerned with the Direct Recruitment of Lecturers in Engineering Branch in

Government Polytechnics in the State of Uttarakhand.Â

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus fixing some guidelines, directing the respondent no. 2 for the recruitment of Lecturers

in Engineering Branch in Government Polytechnics in the State of Uttarakhand.â€​ Â

We heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel on behalf of the

Commission/respondent no. 2.

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the complaint of the petitioners. He would take us to the syllabus and

he would submit that conspicuous by its absence in the syllabus are the aspects relating to the concerned branch of Engineering. He further submits

that this sort of selection would result in persons, who are not proficient, stealing a march over the genuinely competent persons, as the questions

would show that the knowledge of the candidates in the concerned branch of Engineering will not be tested.  Â

Per contra, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Commission/respondent no. 2 would point out that the petitioners are not correct in

contending that the candidates will be recruited on the basis of the syllabus, which is produced along with the writ petition. He would draw our

attention to Rule 15(3) of the Rules and would submit that the candidates are selected on the basis of performance in their interview. As far as the

interview goes, he would submit that the knowledge of the candidates in the concerned branch would necessarily be tested. He would submit that

the candidates apply in thousands and, therefore, it becomes necessary for the Commission to screen the candidates. This is for the purpose of

shortening the list of candidates, who are to be called for the interview. The actual selection takes place only on the basis of the performance in the

interview. The screening is done only for the purpose of weeding out the candidates and for that they have arrived at the criteria, which is found

reflected in the syllabus. Â

In the first place, having noticed the reliefs in the writ petition, it would be wise on our part to remind ourselves of our jurisdiction. This is a case

of judicial review sought of administrative action where we are persuaded to interfere with a syllabus prepared by the Public Service Commission.Â

There are two aspects to it, which we must immediately notice. Ordinarily, in academic matters, and this we must treat as part of academic matters

though it may be relating to selection to a post, the Courts are slow to interfere. The Courts would defer to the wisdom of the experts. The

second aspect is the body, whose action is called in question. The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional Body. It is entitled to a higher

degree of immunity from judicial scrutiny, having regard to the very nature of its position under the Constitution, it is an expert body. The syllabus,

apparently, would have been prepared by the concerned experts. Â

After having made these prefatory remarks, now it is necessary also to go into the specific contentions raised by the petitioners. It is crystal clear

that the petitioners are incorrect in thinking that the candidates are going to be selected on the basis of their performance in the screening test for

which the syllabus has been evolved. It is clear that the candidates will be selected on the basis of their performance in the interview, which follows

the screening test. The screening test is held only for the purpose of weeding out the candidates so that the list of the candidates, who are to be

called for the interview, would be manageable and within limits. Coming to screening test, as such, we may notice that there are four sections and

the maximum marks are 150. The first subject is General Studies. It does contain reference to Indian History, Current Events of National and

International Importance, Indian Geography, Natural Calamities, Basic Knowledge of Indian Constitution, Human Rights, various aspects of Rural and

Urban Development and General Science, Development and Environmental Problems, Development of Science and Technology in India, Modern

Indian Education System, Teaching Competence and Communication and Value based Education. Then, there is Section-II relating to General

Knowledge Related to Uttarakhand State. Section-III deals with General Intelligence Test for which 30 marks is allotted. Then, under Section-IV

knowledge in General Hindi and General English is tested.Â

Taking up the last section first, can we consider the knowledge of English and Hindi to be so irrelevant that the decision can be dubbed as

perverse? We are of the clear view that the post for which the candidates are being considered is the post of Lecturer. The fundamental

element, which is to be present in the mind of the Selecting Body, is the capacity of a person to communicate knowledge. This is an integral part of

the teaching skill. Without adequate knowledge of language, it is in common knowledge that a person would not be in a position to address his

constituents and disseminate knowledge. Then, coming back to General Intelligence Test, can anyone say that the Selecting Body has acted on a

completely irrelevant premise in putting this into the syllabus for the purpose of deciding to eliminate persons for the post of Lecturer, be it in

Engineering. We would think ‘no’. The knowledge of General Knowledge, which contains also reference to Science also cannot be treated

as so irrelevant an aspect, particularly, bearing in mind the purpose of the screening test and also seeking assurance from Rule 15(3) of the Rules,

which, undoubtedly, provides that selection to the post will be made on the basis of the performance in the interview. Â

Therefore, we would think that, particularly keeping in mind the limitations on judicial review with specific reference to the facts of this case also,

both the fears of the petitioners is unfounded and the case of the petitioners is untenable. Â

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel would also submit that in the case of selection for the purpose of selecting persons to P.C.S., elaborate test

is held where written test is held with descriptive type questions and, therefore, this should have been the method of selection here also. We must

notice that the method of selection is actually provided in the Rules and that is by way of an interview. We are not confronted with a challenge to

the Rules, which provide for the method of selection. According to Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, the interview is to last only for 15

minutes and it cannot be understood as to how within a space of 15 minutes, the competence and proficiency of a candidate, and in particular in the

branch of Engineering, would be tested. These are all matters of value judgment and if there two views are possible, at any rate, it would not

provide foundation for a writ court to interfere on the ground that another view is possible. Therefore, whichever way we look at it, there is no merit

in the case. Â

Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed without any order as to cost.Â