Himanshu Kumar Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by learned Single Bench on 26.02.2018 whereby, the appellant has been found to be ineligible for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator) for the reason that he is not a degree holder in Computer Science in Engineering.

The appellant possesses B.Sc degree with subjects "Physics, Mathematics, Computer Application" and M.Sc. (Computer Science).

Since the question arose as to whether the appellant is eligible for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator), the matter was referred to the Committee constituted at University level. Such Committee decided that the degree possessed by the appellant is not equivalent to the degree of Computer Science in Engineering.

Learned counsel for the appellant refers to a Division Bench decision in Anamika Shukla vs State of M.P. : Writ Appeal No.917/2016 decided on 14.12.2016, wherein the writ appellant was found eligible for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant). However, in the said case, the candidate was possessing degree of Master of Computer Applications (MCA) which was found to be higher than the degree of Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA).

In the present case, the Expert Committee has decided that the appellant is not eligible for the post advertised. The decision of Expert Committee is to be respected and cannot be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review as this Court doesn't have expertise to find out the eligibility conditions advertised by the respondents.

Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Nitin Pathak vs State of M.P. : Writ Appeal No.581/2017 decided on 04.09.2017 while examining the scope of judicial review in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters, has held as under :

"31. In view of the discussion above, we hold that in exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts.

In respect of the second question, this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. The Court should not under the guise of preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power."

In view thereof, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, which may warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal.

Dismissed.