Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that it would be treading on thin ice if the courts were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board and it is not within the domain of the Courts to enter into the merits of a selection process, only in case of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules can the court intervene.
Brief Facts:
The selection of respondent no. 3 to the regular post of Drawing Master, reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped General Category and his appointment has been questioned in the current writ petition.
The petitioner, as well as respondent no.3 and other people, received interview calls in 2008 for the post of Drawing Mater which was reserved for the Orthopedically Handicapped General Category. Respondent no. 3 received 13.57 marks and was selected for the position and the petitioner secured 13.07 marks. Two years after the appointment, the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no. 3 on the ground that additional marks given to him for his diploma in library science should not have been given because there was no nexus between the diploma and the position of Drawing Master.
As per the criteria of selection for the post, 5 marks were to be given for additional qualification and the counsel for the respondent had contended that the same was given to other candidates as well who possessed an additional qualification. Hence, the same was in terms of the criteria.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner has not questioned the criteria formulated by the respondents for the award of marks, in fact, no reference has been made to it in the writ petition. The court then noted that it would be too late for the petitioner to contend that the award of marks for possessing additional qualification had no nexus for filling up the post of Drawing Master, if the petitioner was aggrieved, he should have assailed the same at the appropriate stage.
The court then referred to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, where it was held that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It was further noted that it would be indeed, treading on thin ice, if the Courts were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form part of a selection board and it is not within the domain of the courts exercising judicial review to enter into the merits of a selection process which is done by the experts of that domain of a selection committee. It was further noted that only in cases of proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules and only in cases of inherent arbitrariness can the court intervene.
The decision of the Court:
In the current case, the court did not find any allegation of mala fide and since there was no explanation for the delay, it was concluded that the writ petition had no merits, accordingly the same was dismissed.
Case Title: Santosh Nanta v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Case No.: CWPOA No. 450 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. ; Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
