Hema vs Gomti Puran Prasad Arya Kanya Inter College

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court was a candidate for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in a grant-in-aid college namely "Gomti Puran Prasad Arya Kanya Inter College, Ramnagar, District Nainital". It is an admitted fact that the selection to the post of Lecturers in a grant-in-aid college is to be done under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and the Regulations framed therein known as "Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Regulations). The procedure as to the selection and appointments is given in the 2009 Regulations to which we shall be referring in a while.

The admitted procedure in this case is that subsequent to the advertisement which is given by the management committee of the school and which has to be published in two newspapers having wide circulation, candidates apply against the vacancies. Their applications are scrutinised by the Chief Education Officer of the District and each candidate is evaluated on the basis of marks obtained by him/her in high school, intermediate, graduation and post graduation. There are further marks for education training and education experience as well. The total marks for this are 175, and the remaining 25 marks are for the interview which a candidate has to face. For each post of Lecturer/Assistant Teacher, the Chief Education Officer after scrutiny sends a list of top seven candidates to the management committee and the management committee thereafter appoints a selection committee in accordance with law. The Selection committee consists of five members, out of which one is the Principal, second is the Manager or his nominee and three members of the selection committee are nominated by the Chief Education Officer, out of which one is the subject expert. In the interview which is of 25 marks, if a candidate is evaluated for less than 10 marks or for more than 18 marks, then the member of the selection committee has to assign special reasons as to why he is being given such low or high marks, as the case might be. However, in case the marks are to be given between 10 to 18, no special reasons have to be assigned.

The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) pursuant to the advertisement dated 23. 05.2014. In the said selection process, top seven candidates including the present petitioner and the private respondent were shortlisted after scrutiny and the names of the top seven shortlisted candidates were sent to the management committee for interview. The interview was conducted by four members only, as there was no manager in the school at the relevant time.

Before this Court the entire selection process has been challenged. The appointment of respondent no. 6 is a consequence of it.

The documents which are there on the record show that there were seven candidates who appeared in the interview, and the marks obtained by them for educational qualification, etc. secured by them are as follows:-

Smt. Manju Arya (private respondent) -61.2"

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the interview out of the four members each gave 10, 10, 14 and 10 marks, respectively, to the petitioner and similarly marks were awarded to the other candidates who have faced the interview. However, the members awarded 22, 20, 18 and 24 marks, respectively, to the private respondent.

The petitioner secured total 77.9 marks (i.e. 66.9 marks for educational qualification and 11 marks in interview, whereas the private respondent secured total 82.2 marks (i.e. 61.2 marks for educational qualification and 21 marks in interview) and hence she has been selected.

It is absolutely clear that respondent no. 6 has secured over the petitioner and other candidates purely on the basis of her marks in the interview. Amongst the seven candidates called for the interview, she has got the lowest marks and the petitioner highest, based on their educational qualifications. All this Court has to see is whether the selection committee was fair and has adopted due procedure in interview while evaluating the candidates.

As it has already been referred above, if a member of the selection committee awards less than 10 or more than 18 marks in the interview, he has to assign special reasons. However, barring one member of the selection committee, no other members have given special reasons, as to why such high marks are being awarded to respondent no. 6. Even the reason assigned by the member of the selection committee who has awarded 24 marks to the private respondent is that the candidate appears to be "good in conversation" and "well versed in the subject".

The learned counsel for the management as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent would argue that although this is a lapse on the part of the selection committee, as the condition of 2009 Regulation has not been followed, but it is not a serious lapse. Moreover, there are no allegations of mala fide or nepotism here in the petition.

As far as the allegation is concerned, the petitioner has clearly stated in paragraph 14 and alleges arbitrariness in the selection process.

This Court is of the considered view that the selection process is clearly flawed as due procedure has not been adopted. It was mandatory for each member of the selection committee to assign special reasons as to why such marks are being awarded to any candidate. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of private respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities shall initiate selection process immediately and the following procedure be followed:

The Chief Education Officer shall scrutinise the application and the relevant documents annexed therein of each of the applicants, including the present petitioner and the private respondent and thereafter send notices to the shortlisted top seven candidates who are available for the interview. In case the present shortlisted candidates who had participated in the last interview in the year 2014 or some of them are not available, then the Chief Education Officer shall shortlist the next in the merit list in order to ensure that at least 7 candidates are available for the interview. The list of such shortlisted candidates who are available for the interview shall be sent to the management committee who shall thereafter appoint a selection committee to de novo take the interview in accordance with law.

This Court is also conscious of the fact that this process may take time. Therefore, purely in order to see that the studies of the students are not hampered, the private respondent shall continue to teach in the institute and shall be paid salary for the time she has taught, till the new candidate is selected and takes charge, as per the above directions.

Let the entire process be completed as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is given to the Chief Education Officer, Nainital.