Gopal Dass vs State and Others

Permod Kohli, J.—Selection/appointment of private respondents as Lecturer 10+2 Urdu in School Education Department made vide

impugned Order No. PSC/DR/Lect+2/Urdu/98 Dated 6.2.2003 has been questioned in the present petition. In addition to this, a further direction

is sought by the petitioner seeking his own appointment as 10+2 Lecturer on the basis of his name being in the waiting list at Sr.No. 1.

The process for selection was initiated vide advertisement Notice No. 9-PSC of 2001 dated 18.5.2001, whereby applications for the post of

Lecturer (10+2) Urdu in School Education Department were invited from various categories including Scheduled Caste Category. Petitioner

belongs to Scheduled caste Category. There were three vacancies reserved for the category in the advertisement notice. All the candidates were

subjected to screening test conducted on 2.12.2001. Petitioner is said to have qualified for the same. He was called to participate in the interview

held from 7th to 21st December 2002 at Jammu. He appeared for interview. The list of selectees was declared vide impugned order, whereby 20

candidates have been selected in General Category, three in Scheduled Caste category, to which the petitioner belongs, and also in. other

categories. A waiting list of candidates belonging to different categories was also notified and petitioner figures at Sr.No. 1. The claim of the

petitioner is that he is M.A. in Urdu with B.Ed., whereas private respondents are lesser in merit than the petitioner. The second ground of challenge

is that the selection of private respondents is in violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in ""Dr. Inder Prakash v. State and Ors.

In addition to this, what is argued is that the selection has been made only on the basis of interview which is impermissible and violative of Articles

14 & 16 of the Constitution.

It is settled proposition of law that the Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the decision of the Selection body. The Court can only

examine the manner in which the selection has been made. Merely because petitioner has better academic merit does not ipso facto nullify the

selection. The law laid down in Inder Prakash case by the Full Bench has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Petitioner participated in the process of selection and after having failed to make the mark cannot challenge the selection on the ground that the

selection is bad, unless it is established that the selection is violative of either constitutional mandate or other statutory provisions or is the result of

malafide etc. There is no allegation of malafide against any member of the selection body. The Court cannot substitute its own view for the

selection body. There is no merit in this contention.

As regard the question that the selection has been made only on the basis of interview is concerned, the issue is no more res Integra The Apex

Court in case Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has held as under:

.......that the object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for job, avoiding

patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public

service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted and almost universally as the gateway to public services. But the question is

how should the competitive examination be devised ? The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be

based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination

would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy. J. ""In the very nature of things it would not be within the province

or even the competence of the court and the court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more

appropriately left."" To the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks

be allowed for the interview test. Of course the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There

may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test. That is why rigid rules cannot be laid down

in these matters and not by courts. The expert bodies are generally the best judges. The Government aided by experts in the field may

appropriately decide to have a written examination followed by a viva voce test.

In the present case selection has been made only on the basis of interview which is not impermissible. Where the selection is made only on the

basis of interview, the question of excessive marks being fixed does not arise at all. It is only where the interview follows the written test, the

percentage of marks in interview becomes relevant. The object of keeping percentage in such a situation is not to frustrate or nullify the outcome of

written examination. This issue does not arise in the present case. There is no merit in this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.

As regard the claim of the petitioner that he should be appointed being at Sr.No. 1 in the waiting list, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as

person in the waiting list has no right to seek appointment. This question has been set at rest in case of Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu

and Kashmir and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has specifically ruled that selection/appointment can be made only against the advertised

vacancy.

In view of the above, there is no substance in the petition and the same merits dismissed along with connected CMP. I order accordingly.