1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to declare the petitioner as successful candidate on the post of Bench Secretary, Gr.-I on the basis of written examination and interview.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the notification No.10196 dated 09.03.2017, the petitioner applied for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I. Written examination of the aforesaid post was held on 03.06.2017 and the result whereof has been declared on 14.06.2017, which is appended as Annexure 2 with the paper book. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.43. The interview of the petitioner was held on 24.06.2017 but he has not been declared as successful candidate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. Vide letter dated 21.11.2017, the information which was sought by the petitioner was given to him, which is placed on record as Annexure 4 with the petition. Along with the information, the merit list of the successful candidates is enclosed, which is at page 24 of the paper book. The name of the petitioner is not reflected in the list of successful candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a mandamus be issued for declaring the petitioner as successful candidate.
4. Per contra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not made any ground in the writ petition. He has also submitted that the petitioner was not selected after the interview, therefore, he was declared unsuccessful. Sri Mehrotra also pointed out that the representation moved before the Registrar General of this court has been rejected vide order dated 28.01.2019 and the petitioner has not challenged the said order and also not annexed the same with this petition. Sri Mehrotra has also submitted that the petitioner has no case and the instant writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition.
6. The petitioner has not made any specific grounds in the petition for issuing mandamus to the opposite party to declare the petitioner as successful candidate. The petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the selection process. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that an unsuccessful candidate in a selection process can challenge the selection process but only on limited grounds.
7. In K. A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines and others (2009) 5 SCC 515, the Hon"ble Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful candidate participated in a selection process without any demur or protest could not be permitted, later on, to question the process of selection.
8. So far as interview is concerned, this court without knowing what exactly are the questions put to the candidates who appeared before the Interview Board and in what manner they responded to those questions, this Court will not be in a position to state whether the other successful candidates were given escalated marks. The awarding of marks in interview would depend upon the performance of the candidates at the time of interview. The members of the Interview Board who judged the performance of the candidates awarded the marks to them and in the absence of any concrete material this court cannot interfere in the selection process. Unless and until a strong case capable of arriving at an irresistible conclusion that the selection process is vitiated is made out, this court cannot interfere with the selection process.
9. It is a settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review in the matter of appointments and selection is limited. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered on the limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee, vitiating the selection or the proved malafide affecting the selection process. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.
10. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 454, has laid down as under: -
"25. .............There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts........."
11. In another case in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, etc. etc. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc.", AIR 1990 SC 434, it was held as under: -
"9. ..........It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc........"
12. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in Durga Devi and another vs. State of H.P. AIR 1997 SC 2618, has categorically laid down that the Tribunal by itself cannot scrutinise the comparative merits of the candidates for fitness for the post. It is the function of the Selection Committee.
13. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to show that there was any discrepancy in the selection process and the consequent result. The petitioner having participated and not succeeded has levelled number of allegations. These are, however, not supported by any concrete evidence. Also as no defect or irregularities have been pointed out with the said selection process, this Court would refrain from interfering in the same.
14. The award of marks in an interview in terms of performance of the candidates cannot be subject matter of judicial review, unless allegations are made against any member of the Interview Board, which are missing in the present petition. This court cannot sit in appeal over selection process without any substantial grounds.
15. Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019/VNP/-