Susheel Verma vs State of J & K

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioners applied for the post of Botany in response to notification No. 29PSC of 1997 dated 31.12.1997. Their

Education qualification was M.Sc. at the time of filing of the writ petition and they were undergoing Ph.D. in the said subject. On their own showing

as well as as per advertisement referred to by the petitioners, Public Service Commission had to itself reserved the right to hold screening test in

the event of number of candidates being large to reasonable limit on the basis of percentage of marks. In addition to this, it was also a condition of

the said advertisement that a candidate was to have Master Degree in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks or its equalivatent grade and

good academic merit. Besides this, to become eligible for the post of Lecturer in the higher education department, a candidate was essentially

required to possess NET/State Level Comprehensive Test. But in the same notification, it has been mentioned that Govt. vide letter No.

EduColl/PSC/95/Panel dated 17.7.1997 has given one time exemption of the possession of NET/State Level Comprehensive test to the

candidates who were otherwise eligible for competing for selection of Lecturers in Degree Colleges in terms of SRO 77 dated 3.4.1995.

Further case of the petitioners is that they successfully faced their screening test and were thus called for interview but have not been selected. In

this background they have challenged the selection of respondents 4 to 12.

Respondents were put to notice.

At the time of hearing, only ground urged by Sh. Bhasin was that by virtue of petitioners' possessing NET qualification were the only eligible

candidates and they ought to have been appointed. Further, he submitted that so far private respondents and for that matter other candidates are

concerned, they were to be appointed only after the petitioners had been appointed. As such, selection of respondents 4 to 12 deserves to be

quashed.

With a view to advance the case of the petitioners, Sh. Bhasin placed reliance on D.O. No. F.31/2000 (PS) dated 4th of April, 2000 on the

subject UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment and for Career Advancement of Lecturers, Readers and Professor in the

Universities and Colleges, as well as on the notification No. F.31/2000 (PS) dated March, 2000. By referring to these two documents Sh. Bhasin

forcefully urged that there was no question of exemption having been allowed from NET examination. He submitted that on this ground also this

writ petition deserved to be allowed. It may be appropriately pointed out here that so far exemption is concerned, admittedly, State Government

had in fact allowed the same as is evident from the note in the notification whereby applications were called referred to hereinabove is concerned.

Secondly, whether the communications of the University Grants Commission were retrospectively applicable, nothing has been brought on record

by Sh. Bhasin. As already noted, advertisement whereby applications were called is dated 13.12.1997, whereas communications are of April,

2000 and March, 2000. A perusal of both these documents no where suggests that they were intended to be made applicable to the case which

were already in pipe line and nothing more. As such, petitioners plea that exemption could not have been allowed has no merit. This is one reason

to turn down the claim of the petitioners.

Another reason to take this view is that petitioners took part in the interview as also took their chance by appearing therein, on the basis of the

criteria notified in the advertisement including exemption. They did not object to it at any point of time. After being unsuccessful now, they have

come out with the plea that NET test is a condition precedent and the State Government was incompetent to have allowed exemption. This plea

cannot be accepted in the face of decision of Supreme Court of India in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K, 1995(2) SCT 880 (SC) : AIR

1995 S.C. 1088 . Relevant observations which aptly apply to the present case are in the following terms :

""It is now time for us to deal with the contentions canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition. We shall deal with these

contentions seriatim.

Contention No. 1

Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being

concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview.

Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members

of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get

themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined

performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated

chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently

contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v.

Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1989 SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the

petitioners appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging

the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the

said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal

and try to reassess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully

urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the interview Committee which amongst others

consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid

down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be

brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we

are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.

Once could understand a situation wherein a petitioner does not participate in a test and objects to the exemption by making a grievance that

exemption could not and in fact should not have been granted, as such only candidates holding NET/State Level Comprehensive Test should have

been called for consideration, that is admittedly not the petitioner's case; because they took part in the entire process and after being unsuccessful

have filed the writ petition. This is in the other reason for not accepting plea urged by Sh. Bhasin.

An attempt was made to support the case of the petitioners by taking shelter under the plea of bias and mala fide. If proper foundation is laid on

facts to prima facie demonstrate these pleas, its consequence would be to set aside the selection of the private respondents. However, when a

reference is made to the pleadings of the writ petition, there is a big vacuum of facts so as to enable this court to examine the case of the petitioners

on that basis.

No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and consequently, same is dismissed summarily.