LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) and connected appeal Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 Dr. Munish Garg ..... Appellant Versus Dr. Suresh Kumar and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No.1120 of 2011. Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA No.1200 of 2011 and for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in LPA No.1120 of 2011. Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in both the appeals. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two LPA Nos.1120 and 1200 of 2011. 2. We are afraid that this Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, 1919 would have to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge set aside, with utmost respect, only on account of an inadvertent oversight of a small vital fact. The learned Single Judge assumed that a request made under Right to Information Act, 2005 by the unsuccessful LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -2- candidate for appointment to the post of Reader in the subject of Pharmacognosy in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences of the Maharshi Dayanand University was infact the criteria for making selection. In that application under RTI dated 09.01.2009 Dr. Suresh Kumar the unsuccessful canditate had listed information that he required from the University from serial nos.1 to 13 in a tabular form. The University in its reply has categorically stated that “no such criteria has been adopted by the University.” On the strength of this information supplied, there was no separate allocation of marks under the heads 02 to 13. The table as supplied by the University reproduced in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is reproduced here for quick reference:- Information required Reply/position 01.Interview 02.B.Pharmacy merit 03.GATE qualification 04.M.Pharmacy merit. 05.Ph.D awarded 06.Qualifications obtained from a reputed institution 07.Work experience after Post Graduation 08.Post Doctoral experience 09.Research Publications 10.Role of Impact Factor Published Research Papers. 11.Guiding Research on Post Graduation and Doctoral leve. 12.Conferences/Workshops/Seminars attended/Published Abstracts 13.Reviewership of International Journals No such criteria has been adopted by the University. There is provision of Selection Committee under stature-22 of the University Act. The selection to the post of Teachers are made on the recommendations of the statutory selection committee which interviews the eligible candidates and consider the qualification, experience and research publication/work etc. as given at Sr.No.2-13. 3. The argument thus proceeded before the learned Single Judge that there was a strait-jacket criteria for making selection; the Selection Committee was required to assess the candidates on the basis of various LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -3- factors indicated from serial nos.1 to 13 and they did not apply this criteria for making selection. Consequently, the selection of respondent No.1 has been nullified and a direction has been issued to constitute fresh Selection Committee to assess the merit of the applicants afresh. The learned Single Judge has observed that the 13 indicators are parameters for adjudging the calibre of candidates by the Selection Committee. The learned Single Judge has further observed that indubitabily, this is a selection criteria which the Selection Committee was required to adopt for selection. Still further in the judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed that once the criteria has been laid down and as many as 13 parameters were prescribed for adjudging the capability and merit of the candidates, it was obligatory upon the Selection Committee to have assessed the candidates by adopting some methodology either by fixing the total marks and allocating the marks for each component of the criteria or by awarding grading so as to determine their individual merit in accordance with the 13 parameters .Nothing of this sort has been done by the Selection Committee. After the interview, the Committee simply selected respondent no.3, without disclosing how respondent no.3 is better than the petitioner or any other candidate, since the Selection Committee has not drawn any inter se merit of the candidates before it on the basis of the laid down criteria. No individual marks or grading has been awarded in interview and/or for their qualification, work, experience, quality of publications, research work etc. In the main it has been held that this itself is sufficient to vitiate the selection. 4. The University on the other hand had cited and relied upon Statute 22(1) to contend that the Selection Committee for making LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -4- appointment to the post in question was constituted strictly in accordance with the Statute 22 framed under Section 15 of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975. The Constitution of the Statutory Selection Committee has not been faulted by the learned Single Judge or that there was anything remiss in its Constitution. The issue is therefore not open before us as it stands concluded. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in Richa Madan v. AICTE being CWP No.10742 of 2010 decided on 22.07.2010 in which a similar issue of selection for the post of Lecturer of Pharmaceutical Sciences in the same University i.e. MDU, Rohtak was considered. In that case, no criteria was laid down for making selection. The selection was based on interview alone. The learned Single Judge held that in the circumstances it was not required that for interview also the Selection Committee should lay down any specific criteria or that the marks for interview should be divided under various heads. It was stated that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as a Court of Appeal over selection made by expert bodies for posts that require high expertise. Consequently, the challenge to the selection in dispute of laid down criteria was repelled in that case. Learned Senior counsel at the first hearing of this appeal had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(4) RSJ 438 to contend that where no separate marks are allocated for each head/item or parameter the award of marks in lumpsum in an interview based selection could not be faulted and that there would be no illegality in the procedure of LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -5- overall evaluation of candidates without fixing marks for each of the items adopted by the Commission. Therefore, such selection should not be held to be arbitrary. It follows that even where criteria has been broken down in several parameters even then it is not necessary to award marks under each individual head and the total impact of the interview of candidates inter se would be commensurate with the high standards of evaluation expected especially when selection has been left in the hands of experts. We have no doubt that 13 column parameters were devised by the petitioner himself which was categorically responded to by the University by saying that there was no such criteria adopted by it and that selection has been made in accordance with Statute 22 of the MDU Act. We are not unmindful of the fact that no malafides have been alleged in the selection. 6. After hearing learned counsel at length, we are of the view that the orders of the learned Single Judge would have to be set aside and the selection of the petitioner upheld in view of the law laid down in Kiran Gupta case (supra) as also of this Court in Richa Madan case. 7. The appeals are consequently allowed. (M.M. KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 31.10.2011 manju * Sr. No. LPA No. Title 1 1120 of 2011 (O&M) Dr. Munish Garg v. Dr. Suresh Kumar and others LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M) -6- Sr. No. LPA No. Title 2 1200 of 2011 (O&M) Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and another v. Dr. Suresh Kumar and another (M.M. KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 31.10.2011 manju