Manoj Kumar v. Union of Inida & Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgementreservedon: 14^''September,2018 Judgmentpronouncedon:IL__October,2018 + L.P.A. No. 158/2018 MANOJKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr. RanjitSharma,Advocate. versus UNIONOF INDIAAND ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1 , andR-2.RespondentNo.3 in Person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLEMS. JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL SANGITADHINGRASEHGAT J. (Oral)

¶1The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated

24.01.2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this court wherebythe WritPetitionfiled by the Petitionerwas dismissed.

¶2Necessaryfacts to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that appellanthad appliedfor the postofPrimaryTeacherpursuantto a Vacancy Circularissued in March, 2016 by Deen Dayal Institute for Physicallyhandicapped(hereinafterreferredto as Respondent No.2), As per the Vacancy Circular,the selectionprocedurewas throughawrittentest, afterwhicheligiblecandidateswere required to submitthe requisitedocumentsand thereafter,an interviewwas L.P.A. No.158/2018 " , Page 1 of8 to be held for the post in question. The interviewwas dispensed with vide Scheme for Allocation of marks in interview dated 27"" April, 2016 indicating the bifurcation of marks for selection on the basis of essential qualification,additional qualification,essential experience and written test.

¶3Beingaggrievedby the decisionofthe RespondentNo. 1, whereby RespondentNo.3 - HemlataBawa had been appointedto the post inquestion,despitethe Appellanthavingsecuredmore marks in the written examination and also having superior educational qualificationthan Respondent No.3, Appellant herein filed the W.P.(C) No.5279/2017,challengingthe said appointmentwhich was dismissed. The order dated 24.01.2018passedby the learned SingleJudgein W.P.(C)5279/2017is impugnedbeforeus.

¶4Mr. Ranjit Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that RespondentNo.2 had introduceda scheme for allocationof marks for interview, which was notified on 27.04.2016. Learned Counselfor the Appellantfurthercontendedthat the Appellanthas not been allottedmarks for his post graduationdegree as per the scheme for allocation of marks. It is further contended that the dicta in UGC iSc Anr. V. Neha Anil Bobde reportedin (2013) 10 SCC 519 has no applicationin the presentcase as the RespondentNo.2 had wrongly and arbitrarily applied the scheme of allocation of marks for interview against the appellant, which is against the principles of natural justice. L.P.A. No.I5S/20I8 p"g^2of8

¶5On the contrary Mr. Brijesh Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same does not call for any interference by this court. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 contends that as per the Vacancy Circular, Respondent No.2 was well within his rights to short list candidates in the manner considered appropriate. Learned Counsel for , Respondent No.2 further contendsthat a Result Drafting Committee was constituted by Respondent No. 2 owing to the numerous applications received for the post in question. The said committee decided that marks for additional qualification shall only be given to candidates holding additional qualification in the relevant field. Learned Counsel for RespondentNo.2 further contendedthat as per the committee the M.Ed qualification possessed by Respondent No.3 was considered to be relevant for the primary teacher post thus. Respondent No.3 was given .7 marks for her additional qualification.

¶6Respondent No.3 who appears in person adopts the arguments made by the Counsel for Respondent No.2 and sought dismissal of the present appeal.

¶7We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the relevant documents annexed with the writ petition and the appeal.

¶8Before delving into the arguments raised by counsels for the parties we deem it appropriate to reproduce the Scheme for Allocation of L.P.A. No.158/2018 Page 3 of8

¶9marks dated 27.04.2016,which indicatesthat instead of interview, marks for additional qualificationswould be provided, relevant portion of the same has beenreproducedhereinafter:- SI. Particulars Marks

¶1Marksfor essentialQualification(Maximum) Up to 50% 50% to 60% 60% to 70% -70% to 80% Above 80%

¶2Marks for additional Qualifications (Maximum^ PG Diploma . 5 PG Degree M.Phil/professional Qualification in the field Ph.D

¶3Marks for essential Experience

¶4Writtentest (Objective/MultipleChoice Question) Total Marks We also deem it appropriateto reproducethe merit list issued by RespondentNo.2, -^vhichprovidesthe provisionalresultfor the post in question.The list was drawn oh the basis of aggregateof marks attained by candidates for their essential qualification,additional qualification, essential experience and written examination. The same has been reproduced hereinafter:- s. Name Roll No. Categ Marks Marks for Marks for Marks Marks Total No -ory for additional Essential for total for Essential qualification experience academic written qualifica qua exam -tion A B C D E F G H I J I. Hemalata Bawa 1619003 SC

33.25

58.25

¶2Nitin Nirwal 1619014 SC

33.75

57.75

¶3Manoj Kumar 1619049 SC • 0

31.5

57.5

¶4Sumit Kr. Singh 1619105 sc

37.5

49.5

¶5• Jitendra 1619024 SC

36.25

48.25 L.P.A. No. 158/2018 Page 4 of8 L.-

¶6Roshan K.r. 1619008 SC

27.5

47.5

¶7Kapil 1619021 SC

26.25

46.25

¶8Kalpana I6I9103 SC

¶9Preeti I6I9061 SC

22.5

45.5

¶10Nidhi Tomar 1619053 SC

24.5

44.5

¶11Shruti Tomar 1619067 SC

¶12Ramesh Bairwa 1619012 SC

¶13Kapil 1619057 SC

32.5

40.5

¶10From the perusal of the Scheme for Allocation of marks, we find that allocation of marks for selection of candidates was in relation to marks for their essential qualification,additionalqualification, essential experience and marks attained by the candidates in the written test. In case of additional qualification maximum marks i.e. 10 could only be allotted to the candidates having superior education qualificadon of Phd. whereas 7 marks were to be allotted to the candidatespossessingM.Phil/Professionalqualificationin the field.

¶11Counselforthe Appellantlaboredhardon the pointthat,he is better qualified than Respondent No.3, because he would have secured more marks than Respondent No.3 if he was awarded 6 marks for his post graduate qualification.This contention was refuted by RespondentNo.2 in their counter affidavit filed during the Writ Proceeding on the premise that decision ofRespondent No. 2 regarding eligibility of candidates was final and further the fulfillment of condition of minimum qualification did not necessarily entitle the appellant for being recruited. Moreover,RespondentNo. 2 had allottedadditionalmarks only to the candidateshaving additional qualificationin the relevant field. This submissionwas not specificallydenied by the Appellantin L.P.A. No. 158/2018 Page 5 of8 to their Rejoinder Affidavit during the writ proceedings and is deemed to have been accepted by the Appellant.

¶12On perusal of the aforementioned merit list issued by Respondent No.2, we find that in the merit list Respondent No.3-Hemlata Bawa holds the first position with 58.25 marks, Mr. Nitin Nirwal holds the second position with 57.75. marks, and the Appellant herein ranks third with 57.5 marks. Even otherwise if we agree with the argumentsraised by Counsel for the Appellant,the Appellantstill would have failed to succeed in getting an appointment as Mr. Nitin Nirwalhas securedhas securedmore marks than the Appellantand he hasnot been made a partyin thepresentproceedings.

¶13We also deem it appropriate to reproduce clause 14 and 19 of the Vacancy Circular "14.Decisionof the institute in all matters regarding eligibilityof the candidate, the stages at which such scrutiny of eligibility is to be undertaken, the documentsto be producedfor the purposeof conduct ofinterview,selectionandany othermatterrelatingto recruitment will befinal and bindingon the candidate. Further, the institutereservesthe right to stall / cancel the recruitmentpartially/fully at any stage duringthe recruitment process at its discretion, which will be final and binding on the candidate." "19. Fulfillment of conditions of minimum qualificationshallnot necessarilyentitleany applicant to be calledfor further process ofrecruitment, in case of large number of applications, Institute reserves the right to short-listapplicationsin any manner as may be consideredappropriateandno reasonfor rejection shall be communicatedand no claimfor refundoffee shall be entertained in any case. L.P.A.No.158/2018 Page6of8

¶14From the perusal of extracted clauses, it is evident that Respondent No.2 was well within his right to short list the candidates in the manner considered appropriate and decision of Respondent No.2 in all matters regarding eligibility of the candidate relating to recruitment was to be final and binding on the candidates. Impliedly the decision of the committee, pertaining to allocation of additional marks, remains purely an administrative decision.

¶15The Apex court in the case of Neha AnilBobde (Supra), while heavily deahng with the issue of limitation of courts in policy matters has held as under:- "29.We are of the view that in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provision, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issuesfall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao IR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and •Rajbir Singh Dala v. Chaudhary Devi Lai University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem theyface, than the Courts generally are"

¶16The Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Education Dept., Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., reported at (1980) 3 SCC 97, and L,P,A, No,158/2018 Page 7of8 All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors. reported at (2009) 11 SCC 726 has reiterated that in academic matters, the interference of courts should be minimum.

¶17Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order dated

24.01.2018passedby the Ld. SingleJudge.

¶18The appealisdismissedaccordingly. SANGIJ^mNJfRA SEHGAL,J. ^ G,S. SISTANI,J. OCTOBER^^,2018 gr// L.P.A. No.158/2018 " " Page 8 of8