Ram Chander vs Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Others

Permod Kohli, J.—Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed

of at motion stage itself.

Respondent No. 1 -University advertised five posts of Lecturers in Institute of Management Studies and Research,--vide Advertisement No. 1

of 2008. Three out of five posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Without completing the process of selection, the posts were re-

advertised,--vide advertisement No. 3 of 2008. It was stipulated in the subsequent advertisement that the candidates who had applied in response

to the earlier advertisement need not apply again. The petitioner had applied in response to the first advertisement. It is stated that the petitioner is

fully eligible. Besides academic qualifications, the petitioner is LL.B. Professional, B.Ed and has also passed tests like UGC Test for Junior

Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureships in the year 1996, State Level Eligibility Test for Lectureship from Kurukshetra University,

Kurukshetra in the year 1995 and UGC-NET examination for eligibility for Lectureship in the year 2004. The petitioner has also worked as

Marketing Manager in BM Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, The petitioner was called for interview,--vide letter dated 19th September,

2008. Interview was held on 6th October, 2008. On completion of the process of selection, private respondents were selected for the post under

the Scheduled Caste category. It appears that being not satisfied with the outcome of the selection, the petitioner sought information under the

Right to Information Act in respect of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview and merit position etc.--vide application dated 2nd

January, 2009. Official respondents furnished the information.--vide its reply dated 19th January, 2009 (Annexure P-10). From the information

furnished by the respondents, it has been revealed that no merit list was prepared on the basis of the performance in the interview and selection has

been made without determining the inter se merit and without applying any rational and valid criteria.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is true that selection body is entitled to formulate its own criteria for making selection, if

not otherwise provided for under any rules or laid down guidelines. However, the criteria has to be fair, rational and non-arbitrary. From the

written statements filed, it is evident rather an admission on the part of the respondents that no statutory criteria exists nor there is any laid down

criteria for making selection. It has been stated in the reply that the selection has been made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection

Committee. On receipt of the recommendation from the Selection Committee, the Executive Council of the University adopted a resolution

approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It has also been disclosed that as many as 58 applications were received for the five

posts, 21 candidates were found eligible. According to the information furnished to the petitioner, all the eligible candidates were called for

interview for 6th October, 2008 excluding the ESM Category. 17 candidates appeared in interview. The Selection Committee did not prepare any

merit list of the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview and just recommended two names i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 for

appointment. Record of selection was called for. From the record of selection, it is evident that neither any marks were awarded for interview

and/or academic merit nor the candidates were graded in any other manner. How and what mode was adopted for selection seems to be a close

secret. No valid, rational and fair criteria was laid down or adopted for making selection nor any record of inter se merit of the appearing

candidates has been maintained.

In the reply, it is admitted that no merit list was prepared. Without preparing the inter se merit of the candidates, how private respondents were

assessed better than the petitioner since no marks are disclosed anywhere nor the same are revealed from the record of selection. Reply to

question No. 2 given under the Right to Information Act establishes the total arbitrariness on the part of the respondent/selection body. Question

No. 2 of the petitioner and response thereto are reproduced here under:

Question Answer

Those supply the merit list with 2. Proceedings of the Committee

details of marks awarded on is/are attached herewith wherein

account of merits and in interview the Selection Committee has not

to the selection and non-selected prepared any merit list.

candidates for the post of Lecturer

of Psychology and Management

under advertisement No. 1/2008

and 3/2008.

Above answer leaves no room to speculate about the manner and method of selection rather it is abundantly clear that selection has been made

against all settled cannons of service jurisprudence. How the selection can be made without assessing the inter se merit of the candidates is sole

question which has come up for consideration in the present case.

Admittedly, the Selection Committee has not prepared any merit as per reply to paragraph 2 of the application for seeking information under

Right to Information Act. This clearly establishes that the selection has been made without any fair, valid and rational criteria being adopted or even

assessing the merits of the appearing candidates. It would not be wrong to infer that the entire selection is a farce and has been made by adopting

Pick and Choose"" Method. Selection made in this manner cannot be sustained even if the selectees are the best suited candidates for the job.

Petition is accordingly allowed with the following directions:

(i) Selection/appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 is hereby quashed;

(ii) The University will formulate a rational, fair, non-arbitrary and valid criteria for the purpose of making selection to the post in question and

notify the same not only within the University Campus, but even in public by issuing the advertisement in one English newspaper and one vernacular

having circulation in the concerned area;

(iii) Fresh selection shall be made in accordance with the notified criteria within a period of four months. Petitioner and all other candidates who

were eligible at the time of advertisement shall have the right to participate in the selection process notwithstanding that thereafter anyone of them

has been rendered ineligible on account of over-age etc.