LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 Babita Rani .......Appellant Versus Punjabi University, Patiala and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.DS Patwalia, Advocate for the appellant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. CM No.5586 of 2011 On account of the averments made in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. LPA No.2081 of 2011 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.8.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.18735 of 2009, whereby the selection to the post of Lecturers in Physics conducted by the respondent-University has been set aside and directions have been issued to conduct a selection process afresh. 3. An advertisement dated 4.8.2008 was issued by the respondent- University inviting applications for appointment against three posts of Lecturers in the subject of Physics. One post for the general category, one LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 2 was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and the third was a specialized post, namely, Lecturer (Physics) in “Theoretical Condensed Matter”. The qualification required for filling up the aforementioned post was to possess a good academic record with a Master Degree level qualification in the relevant subject i.e. Physics with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade. Besides fulfilling the qualification mentioned hereinabove, it was stipulated that the candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by the UGC. Candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject were exempted from NET for post-graduate level and under-graduate level teaching. 4. As many as 52 applications were received in response to the advertisement dated 4.8.2008 for the post of Lecturer in Physics and the respondent-University having resorted to a process of short-listing, ultimately called 28 candidates for an interview that was conducted on 22.10.2009. The admitted position of fact is that the selection to the post of Lecturer in Physics was done solely on the basis of interview. It is under such facts and circumstances that the appellant and proforma respondent No.7 were issued appointment letters for the post of Lecturer, Department of Physics in the respondent-University on 30.10.2009. 5. Mr.DS Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and setting aside the selection to the post of Lecturer in Physics. It has been contended that not only was the qualification prescribed, but a criteria had also been formulated and accordingly, a merit list had been drawn out on the basis of such selection process. As per learned counsel, no interference under Article 226 of the LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Constitution of India was called for. Still further, the plea of estoppel has been raised to contend that the writ petitioners having participated in the selection process and having been unsuccessful, they could not now turn around and challenge the same. 6. We have perused the pleadings on record and heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. 7. Judicial review in the matter of selection is limited to the examination of the manner and method of selection, observance of rules and a fair consideration being accorded during the process of selection. We, however, find that in the present process of selection conducted by the respondent-University for purposes of appointment to the post of Lecturers in Physics which was based solely on the performance in the interview, no criteria has been followed, no grading of the candidates has been done and as such, it is not discernible as to on what basis the inter se merit of the candidates has been determined. Undoubtedly, a criteria for screening and short-listing of the candidates was approved by the Syndicate of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 4.2.2005 vide para 58. The same was placed on record at Annexure P15. Such criteria was applied for the limited purpose of screening and short-listing. The performance of a candidate in terms of such criteria was only for the purpose of calling the particular candidate for the interview and the marks awarded during such process of short-listing were not to be counted for determination of the final merit at the time of interview which, in turn, would facilitate appointment to the post. The writ petitioners had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a specific query had been raised for disclosure of the criteria adopted by the University for selection of the candidates for LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the post of Lecturer in Physics. In response thereto, the information supplied is to the following effect: “Selection is to be made only on the performance made by the candidate before the Selection Committee.” 8. The learned Single Judge, while holding that no criteria had been followed by the Interview Committee and neither has there been any grading inter se the candidates, has observed in the following terms: “Mr.Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has not been able to show even from the record that as to how the performance of the candidates was judged/evaluated at the time of interview. Neither from the record nor from any other documents, it is shown that any merit was prepared or any grading was done on the basis of performance of each candidate. Even there is nothing on record to show as to how the performance of the candidates has been assessed by the Interview Committee.” 9. On a pointed query being raised in this regard, Mr.DS Patwalia, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the criteria if at all adopted was only for purposes of short-listing and not at the stage of main selection i.e. before the Interview Committee. 10. We are of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the Interview Committee to have assessed and adjudged all the candidates appearing before it in terms of reasonable and relevant parameters in the nature of qualifications possessed, work experience, research, publications, participation in conferences, workshops, seminars etc. Nothing of the sort has been done by the Interview Committee while conducting the interview LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 5 for purposes of selection to the post of Lecturers in Physics. Suffice it to say, that such a process of selection does not inspire any confidence at all. The selection process under question as such cannot be sustained. 11. Equally devoid of merit is the submission raised on behalf of the appellant wherein the plea of estoppel against the writ petitioner has been raised. We have noticed hereinabove that the criteria, if any, was applied only at the stage of short-listing. The Interview Committee has followed no criteria whatsoever. There has been no grading inter se the candidates so as to determine their inter se merit. Under such circumstances, where the criteria of selection itself had neither been formulated nor followed, it would not lie in the mouth of a selected candidate or for that matter, the respondent-University to contend that the unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the selection process having participated in the same. Such plea of estoppel was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others v. State of UP and others, 2005(2) SCT 827 and it was observed as under: “13. The Division Bench also found that at the time of making the application the scheme notified by the State Government was that the preparation of the merit list would be at the State level and not at the district level. The criterion for merit list was subsequently challenged only on 31.10.2001 i.e. after the applications had been made by the candidates. Consequently, no candidate had any occasion to protest, since the criterion was abruptly changed by the State Government. Thus, the Division Bench overruled the objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions by taking the view that there was no LPA No.2081 of 2011 (O&M) 6 question of estoppel and the candidates, who had applied and were not selected could not be said to be estopped from challenging the process of selection. Nor could there be any plea of promissory estoppel invoked by the writ petitioners, as nothing was established to show that they had altered their position to their detriment by applying pursuant to the advertisement. In our view, the finding of the Division Bench on this point is justified.” 12. For the reasons recorded above, we find no basis to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 23.8.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.18735 of 2009. 13. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE November 14, 2011 SRM Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No