Pondicherry Engineering College and Selection Committee, Pondicherry Engineering College vs A. Muthuramalingam, S. Himavathi, B. Rami Reddy and All India Council for Technical Education

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—These writ appeals are filed against the common order of the Writ Court in writ petitions Nos. 793 to 795 of

2006, whereby the Writ Court directed the appellants herein to select and appoint the writ petitioners (the first respondents herein) to the post of

Professors in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (''EEE'' for short) on par with the recruitment of Professors in other

Departments under the same faculty recruitment Notification published on 30.06.2005.

The facts are: The first respondent in each of the appeals are working as lecturers in EEE department of the appellant college, viz., the

Pondicherry Engineering College. The said college issued a faculty recruitment notification on 30.06.2005 calling for applications for three posts of

Professors, two posts of Assistant Professors and one post of Lecturer in the EEE department, among other posts in other faculties. The writ

petitioners, being possessed with the qualification prescribed in the notification, applied for the post of Professors. Pursuant to the same, they

attended the interview on 21.10.2005. The interview for the recruitment of other posts also, as called for in the notification on 30.06.2005, was

held on 21.10.2005. Appointment orders were issued to the candidates, who appeared for the post of Professors in other departments, but so far

as EEE department, the results were not published. Hence, the first respondent in each of the appeals filed writ petitions No. 37273 to 37275 of

2005 seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to select and appoint the writ petitioners to the posts of

Professor in EEE department by declaring the results of the interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 21.10.2005 on par with the other

department. While the writ petitions were pending, pursuant to the letters of the writ petitioners dated 28.10.2005, the appellant college through

the Principal informed by a memorandum dated 02.12.2005 that the selection committee did not recommend the writ petitioners for appointment

to the posts of Professor in EEE department. The writ petitioners again filed another set of writ petitions in W.Ps. Nos. 793 to 795 of 2006

challenging the memorandum dated 02.12.2005 and further for a direction to the appellants to select and appoint the writ petitioners to the posts of

Professors in the EEE department.

The core contention of the writ petitioners in this case is that one Vivekanandan, Assistant Professor of CSE department, who did not possess

the requisite qualification as on 15.07.2005, the last date for submitting the completed application forms, was issued with an appointment order as

Professor in that Department, whereas the writ petitioners, who are fully qualified candidates, were not selected and found not fit for the post of

Professor.

The writ Court on the view that for the three posts of Professors in the EEE department, only three candidates applied; all of them were working

as Assistant Professors in the very same college and were fully qualified for the post; that except saying that the Selection Committee found them

not fit to hold the posts, no other reason, whatsoever, has been given by the appellants and no other materials were shown as to how the writ

petitioners were found to be not fit for the posts. On the above reasoning and also taking into consideration that one Vivekanandan, who did not

possess the requisite qualification at the time of submitting the application, was favoured with appointment in that Department, the writ Court gave

a positive direction to the appellants herein to appoint the writ petitioners as prayed for in the writ petitions.

On hearing the learned Counsel on either side and on perusing the materials available on record, we are not able to approve the order of the

writ Court.

It is seen from the notification dated 30.06.2005 that the appellant reserves the right to fill up the posts or alter the number of posts or even to

cancel the whole process of recruitment without assigning any reason. Just because the writ petitioners are possessed of requisite qualification as

required under the Notification and further fact that for the three posts of Professors, three candidates have appeared for the interview, ipso facto,

cannot be a reason making them entitled to be appointed as Professors. It is the objective satisfaction of the selection committee, which is

comprised of experts, and that has to decide the suitability or otherwise of the candidates for the prescribed posts. Either the constitution of the

Selection Committee or the procedure followed by it is questioned by the writ petitioners. So, it can be safely presumed that the Constitution and

the procedure followed by the Selection Committee is in accordance with the statutory provision. It is pertinent to note that no statutory provision

is referred to either before the Writ Court or before this Court.

Then the next question is, whether the Selection Committee is obliged to select the three candidates appeared for the interview because of the

co-equal vacancies and possession of requisite qualification by them. We are afraid to accept the same and the only answer of us is an ""emphatic

no"". If the same is correct, then there is no need for any interview by the Committee. The very purpose of interview is to assess the performance of

the candidates objectively by the experts, who formed the Selection Committee. As the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case and no

absolute or straight jacket formula could be laid down, due consideration should be given to the views expressed by the Selection Committee in

the affairs of the administration of selection of teachers or professors. The competence and merit of the candidate could be judged not on the basis

of the qualification the candidate possessed, but by other necessary factors such as performance of the candidate throughout their career,

experience in the field on which the selection is going to be held and above all, the general aptitude and personality of the candidate for the post,

which can be evaluated and decided only by the Experts Committee, particularly in educational matters, who have the expertise on the subject.

The Court cannot substitute the view of the Selection Committee.

The only limited ground on which the Court can interfere with the selection process is patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the

Committee or the procedure adopted by the Committee or proved malafide. None of the reasons has been stated by the writ petitioners against

the Selection Committee. Hence, the writ Court should not have interfered with the decision arrived at by the Selection Committee.

It is well settled proposition that no candidate will have a vested right to compel the selection Committee either to complete the process of

selection or appoint him or her as he/she possessed the requisite qualification. Even the candidates, who have been selected for vacancies in the

interview, would not have any right to be appointed to the post and they are not entitled to seek a mandamus to that effect. Useful reference can be

had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh Dalal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; The State of Haryana

Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, , and Osmania University represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad, A.P. Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan and

Another, .

The other contention that one Vivekanandan, who did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of submitting his application for

appointment, has been selected for that post, cannot make the writ petitioners entitled for appointment. It is well settled that there can be no

equality in illegality. Benefits extended to some persons in an illegal or irregular manner cannot be claimed by others on the plea of equality.

Illegalities committed in some other case cannot be held a ground for perpetrating the illegality. The guarantee of equality being a positive concept,

cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or even a group of individuals,

others, though falling in the same category, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the writ Courts for enforcement of the same irregularity on the

reasoning that the similar benefit has been denied to them. Any direction for enforcement of such claim shall tantamount to perpetuating an illegality,

which cannot be permitted. A claim based on equality clause has to be just and legal. An order made in favour of a person in violation of the

prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum

cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities. Useful reference can be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and

Others Vs. K. Prasad and Another, , National Council for Teacher Education and Another Vs. Committee of Management and Others, and State

of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, .

The other contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioners that the suitability or eligibility cannot be determined by the Selection Committee

and it is only the AICTE, which is the supreme body that could alone decide the suitability, is not also acceptable. The AICTE, as the supreme

body, could prescribe the qualifications only. The power of selection among the qualified candidates definitely vests with the selection committee.

The writ petitioners have also not questioned the constitution of the selection committee or the power of the Selection Committee.

The Principal of the college, as one of the committee members, has filed his counter wherein he has categorically stated that after going through

the educational qualifications, experience and on the basis of the performance in the personal interview, the committee''s recommendations was that

the three candidates, who appeared for the interview, were not found fit to the post of Professor in the department of EEE. In order to fill up the

vacancies in the appellant college in EEE department, a further notification calling upon the applications for filling up the posts of Professors, has

been issued, which shows the anxiety of the college/appellant to fill up the vacancies at the earliest, otherwise, the appellants have to answer the

AICTE. It is well open to the writ petitioners to prepare themselves well and appear again before the Selection Committee, if they choose to do so

and come out successfully.

Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Saxena Vs. New Delhi Municipal

Committee and others, , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the person having no diploma qualification, but having experience of six years as

Senior and Junior Draftsman is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman. We are at a loss to understand as to how

that judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. That was a case for promotion and the basis for promotion qualifications fixed

therefor. But the case on hand is in respect of direct recruitment calling for applications to fill up the posts of Professors in an educational institution,

prescribing the qualifications.

In view of the reasoning and other propositions of law, we are of the view that the writ Court, by giving a positive direction to appoint the writ

petitioners as Professors, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has virtually converted the Court into a

Selection Committee and passed an order, which is impermissible in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

For the reasons stated above, the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ appeals are

allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are consequently dismissed.