Swarup Chand Gupta etc. vs State of H.P. etc.

D.B. Lal, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Shri S. C. Gupta and two others have called in question the selection and appointment of Respondents 3 to 9 for the posts of Mass Education and Information Officers (Class II) in the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The case of the Petitioners is, that an advertisement was published by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2) in the "Tribune" in its issue dated 26th May, 1972. In that advertisement for the 8 temporary posts of Mass Education and Information Officers (Class II) (hereinafter to be referred to as the disputed service) certain essential and desirable qualifications were prescribed. According to the Petitioners, they fulfilled the requisite qualifications. However, Petitioner No. 3 did not apply in response to the advertisement, because there was vagueness and lack of clarity in the advertisement as to these qualifications. The Public Service Commission held the interview of theeandidates from 25th August, 1972 to 4th September, 1972 at Simla.. The Petitioners 1 and 2 had applied and they appeared in the interview test. The Commission declaredthe result on 14th September, 1972, and the Petitioners 1 and 2 were not selected. The Commission, however, selected Respondents 3 to 9 And recommended for their appointment in the disputed service. The Petitioners contend that they were better qualified than the Respondents 3-to 9 and should have instead been selected by the Commission. According to them Respondents 3 to 6 did not fulfill the requisite qualifications and as such should have been rejected by the Commission. The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were couched in such vague terms so as to give arbitrary and unguided power to the Commission while making selection. There was yet another violation of the terms of the advertisement inasumuch as instead of two posts reserved for the scheduled castes, only one person was appointed and the other post was not de-reserved so that advantage could not be given to the petitinoer No. 2 although he was kept at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. According to the Petitioners the Commission relaxed the requisite qualifications in the case of Respondents 3 to 6 and this was highly unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. In fact the Commission could not relax the qualifications when Petitioners 1 and 2 weie available who possessed these qualifications. It was vaguely asserted in the petition that "oblique or mala fide motive" was brougt into play from a certain "wing of the Government". On these grounds the Petitioners solicit that the selection of the Respondents 3 to 9 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued, against Respondent No. 1-the State Government to appoint the Petitioners 1 and 2 instead of Respondents 3 to 9. It is further prayed that in case the Respondents 3 to 9 have been appointed, their appoinment order be quashed.

The Public Service Commission has contended that there was neither vagueness nor lack of clarity in the advertisement. If the Petitioner No. 3 was duly qualified he should have applied to the post. If he has not done so he is to blame for himself and cannot question the selection on any such ground. Moreover the Petitioner No. 3 has not even filed any affidavit in support of his contentions. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were interviewed by the Commission. Their relevant merit was assessed and the best discretion in a reasonable manner and in good faith was exercised. There was no violation of any provision of the law nor any rule of natural justice. In fact no right of the Petitioners has been either curtailed or otherwise violated. The Respondents 3 to 9 were duly qualified and as they were found more suitable, the selection was made in their favour. The qualification regarding experience connected with health education etc. was not kept minimum or exact. The experience was to be about three years and the minimum standard was not indicated for definite reasons. The experience required under this clause did not specify the branch or field for which the experience was required. The broad indication was given in the clause and that was sufficient. That is why adequate, experience of work in rural areas was specified as essential qualification. The Respondents 3 to 9 were considered eligible in every respect and hence they were selected. A comparative study was made on their merits and the Petitioners 1 and 2 could not qualify in the test. According to Commission it is wrong to submit that any arbitrary or unguided powers were given to the Commission while making their recommendation. The language was simple and easily intelligible and followed the known pattern. As regards the reserved vacancies it was only an enabling clause and did not make it obligatory neither on the part of the Commission nor on the Government to dereserve that post. It was denied that the Commission made use of foot-note containing the relaxing clause, in favour of the Respondents 3 to 6. In fact the advertisement was neither kept vague nor any oblique or mala fide motive was exercised as submitted by the Petitioners.

The Respondent No. 1, namely, the State Government adopted the return of the Commission. The Respondents 3 to 6 and 8 and 9 filed separate returns. They reiterated the stand taken by the Commission. Besides that, they contended that they were better qualified than the Petitioners and were rightly selected by the Commission. In fact no right of the Petitioners has been violated. The Court cannot enter into the mental process of assessment made by the Commission.

In fact the Petitioners 1 and 2 did not derive and legal right merely by applying for the post or even merely because they were called for interview. Thus the Respondents prayed that the writ petition deserves dismissal.

The qualifications in the advertisement in respect of which the plea of vagueness or lack of clarity is pleaded are reproduced below in the following terms:

QUALIFICATIONS:(ESSENTIAL).

(i) ....

(ii) About 3 years'' experience connected widi health education/ publicity/public relations work in a recognised institution dealing with publicity/extension work/social education/ organisation.

(iii) Adequate experience of work in rural areas.

Desirable:....

N.B: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Commission in case of candidates otherwise well qualified.

The undisputed facts in the petition are that no rules were prescribed for the post of Mass Education and Information Officer (Class II). It was no doubt a selection post and the Public Service Commission asked for applications. The candidates were interviewed and recommended for appointment. It cannot be denied that the Commission was an independent body and there is every presumption that proper care and caution was taken to make a bona fide selection. The plea regarding mala fide is couched in the petition in a very hesitating and halting Language. There is neither precise nor definite pleading of malafide. It is only stated that the qualifications specified were kept vague with an "oblique or mala fide motive flowing from some influential source or wing of the Government so that such persons as were desired by such source could be selected even if they lacked the requisite qualifications for the post". Firstly nothing was stated as to mala fide regarding selection by the Commission. No detail was given of the so called "oblique or mala fide motive" on the part of the Government. It was not described what that "influential source or wing" was and how that source or wing influenced the decision. Apart from all this, it is wrong to submit that persons lacking the requisite qualifications were selected.

It is also abundantly clear that the Petitioners never derived any right to the post merely because they applied in response to the advertisement or were interviewed by the Commission. The Petitioner No. 3 did not even apply for the post and he should thank himself. The Petitioners had merely a right of consideration. This right was given and the Petitioners 1 and 2 did appear in the interview test. The Court will not go into the question as to the mental process of the Commission why they thought the Respondent No. 3 to 9 more suitable as compared to Petitioners 1 and 2 for the selection to the post. The right to select includes the right not to select and the Court will not probe into the mental process of the Selection Committee as to what weighed with them and how the selection was made. In support of this we can refer to Union of India v. Mr. Bhim Singh and Ors. 1971 (2) S. L. R. 111.

In order to reinforce their argument the Commission have pointed out the qualifications of the Respondents 3 to 6. In no case these Respondents could be considered lesser qualified than the Petitioners 1 and 2. As to their suitability the choice was with the Commission. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Respondents 3 to 6 were lesser qualified but this would be a question of fact for which evidence has to be adduced. At any rate there is no reason to disbelieve the return of the Commission where the qualifications of the respective candidates are duly pointed out. The Respondents 3 to 6 could not be stated to be lesser qualified than the Petitioners 1 and 2. It is admitted case of the Petitioners that the Respondents 7 to 9 were qualified as laid down in the advertisement. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the Respondents 3 to 9 possessed the qualifications. The conditions laid down in the advertisement were duly followed. In fact the footnote regarding relaxation was not even applied. The Petitioners should have no grievance as to that. The appointments were never made so as to conflict with the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. As to the plea regarding vagueness and lack of clarity in th; advertisement, reference is made to the qualifying words "about three years" and "adequate experience" used in Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the essential qualifications. If the essential qualification regarding experience was made "about three years", care was taken not to prescribe it either exact or in a minimum term. It was left to the Commission to judge the value of the officer according to the period undergone while acquiring experience in the various fields pointed out in the qualification. The discretion of the Commission in that respect was exercised in a bona fide and reasonable manner. Similar was the case regarding the work in rural areas. Only adequate experince was required and it was left to the Commission to judge the merit of each candidate regarding that experience. It is not correct to say that any unguided power was given to the Commission or that such unguided power was at all misused in the case of the Petitioners. If the Petitioner No. 3 did not apply for the post considering that he did not possess adequate experience, it was his own fault if he really possessed that experience. He has not even filed any affidavit to substantiate his allegations. The language used in the advertisement according to the Commission was simple and easily intelligible and followed the known pattern. At any rate no circumstance is pointed out in the case of Petitioners 1 and 2 as to in what manner any vagueness or lack of clarity, if any, in the two qualifications at all affected their case on merit. There was no discrimination shown so as to deprive the Petitioners of their right of selection. Similarly neither unjust treatment was meted out nor any rule of natural justice was violated. In fact the Petitioners never possessed any right for which they could seek a remedy.

In this view of the matter the entire pleas are thrown over board and I am persuaded to hold that the selection was correct and bona fide. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee to be assessed at Rs. 200/-.