C.W.P. No.2594 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2594 of 1987 Date of Decision. 02.11.2011 Narinder Kumar Rattan, Lecturer, in Department of English, Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak .....Petitioner Versus The Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak through its Registrar and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The petitioner seeks for a consideration of his right to be promoted to the post as a Reader in Department of English from the post, which he has held as a Lecturer on the basis of merit as evaluated on his published and research work in accordance with the promotion scheme. The claim of the petitioner is founded on the fact that he had remained a Research Scholar in Punjabi University Patiala between 1961- 1970 and then in Modi College Patiala in 1970-71 and the Government College, Bathinda in 1971-72. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent who had been selected for promotion was actually junior to the petitioner and has lesser experience than the petitioner. He has no publication to his credit and there are no better claims for the 2nd respondent over the petitioner except that he was Ph.D. As far as the C.W.P. No.2594 of 1987 -2- 3rd respondent is concerned, he was also a junior to the petitioner. He was visually challenged and held no publication to his credit. He has also submitted his thesis for Ph.D and that itself appears to have been taken as a strong point for him. 2. When we are considering the issue whether the petitioner was entitled to a better consideration over the candidates, who were selected under the merit scheme, the issue of seniority goes to back seat. The petitioner cannot, therefore, advance his case on the issue that he is more senior to the selected candidates namely the respondents No.2 and 3. If there is a procedure prescribed for appraisal on merit with two tiers, namely, independent referees making an appraisal and a Selection Committee duly constituted making final selection before approval by the Executive Committee, it shall not be possible for the Court to substitute its judgment on reappraisal unless the procedure followed by the Selection Committee is erroneous. The Court is not an expert body for appraisal of research output of candidates and their relative merits. The Selection Committee has not sought to secure support for its decision only from the fact that between the selected candidates, one was Ph.D and another has submitted his doctoral thesis. The contention of the petitioner that even an interview ought not to have been held and that it should have only considered the relevant merits by an appraisal of research papers cannot also be accepted. There is no motive alleged against any of the members of the Selection Committee. From the written statement, it is evident that the Selection Committee itself consisted of two members of international repute, one from the Punjabi University and another from C.W.P. No.2594 of 1987 -3- Madras University. No material is brought by the petitioner to fault the decision and the petitioner’s own self-appraisal that his research output has been prodigious cannot be a basis for annulling the selection made. If the process of selection is transparent and conforms to rules and if such a procedure has been followed, there is no scope for judicial interference. I cannot accept the plea that the interview ought not to have been conducted and that the entire appraisal must have been made only on the research and the publications made by the candidates. A lecturer in college just does not do only research and make publications. The person teaches, as well and such qualities of teaching abilities cannot be done except in a personal interview. 3. Under the circumstances, I cannot find any justification for upholding the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 02, 2011 Pankaj*