SIIIStBISBiSS^B W^K^S"- WSS99 HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAIVI: Hon'ble Shri RaieevGuDfa. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil KumarSinha. J. Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 APPELLANT Petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra S/o Dr. O.N. Mishra, Aged about 44 years, R/o B/38, Kranti Nagar, Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus is.^^^- RESPONDENTS 1 3. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur Through Registrar Chancellor, G.G.D. Vishwa- Vidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) Anupama Sinha (Saxena) D/o Meghnath Sinha, Lecturer, Potiticat Science, G.G.D. Vishva- Vidyataya, Bitaspur(C.G.) (Writ Appeal underSection 2(1) of the Chhattisciarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench), Act 2006) Ajipearance; Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, appellant in person. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Avinash Mishra & Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocates for respondent No.3. ^ '^: ^ .-;5^^ ^ i!V' A? ....^-'y' Writ Appeal No. 226of2009 • ::'"l ' ' . . • ' . • . ORDER (5i.08.2010) Following order of the Court was delivered by Suni[ KumarSinha^J. (1) Being aggrieved with order dated 6 of February, 2006 passed in W.P. No. 2964/1991 and order dated 12th of February, 2009 passed in Review Petition(M.C.C.) No. 146/2006, bythe learned Single Judge ofthis Court, the appellant/petitioner has filed thiswrit appeal. B; (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing of the appointment order of respondent No.3 and for further direction for his appointment on the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 8.2.88, the appellant and respondent No.3 applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The last date for submission of the application form was 7.3.88. The interview was conducted on 9.9.88. As per advertisement dated 8.2.88, the qualifications for the post of Lecturer was declared "As prescribed by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi for Lecturer in the Universities". Itwas anessential qualification. Apart from the above the desirable qualification was that "preference shall be given tocandidates specialized in or having experience of research andstudies in the field of weaker section of society particularly tribals, harijans and women,and in rurat development". After the interview, respondent No.3 was selected and was issued appointment letter. The petitioner claimed that the selection of respondent No.3 was not proper; he was better candidate than respondent No.3; he had better qualifications than respondent tes!^;"^;.':- ^, 8 *»8-;f ^t ^"S^^^S-'S1 ^-^^e^tl Writ Appeal No. 226 of2009 No.3; and the selection of respondent No.3 was on account of extraneous considerations. Therefore, the entire process of selection was vitiated. Respondents opposed the above contentions of the appellant and contended that on gccount of comparative merits between the appetlant and respondent No.3, the Setection Committee found respondent No.3 as more suitable than the appellant, therefore, she was appointed. To show comparative merits of the appeltant and respondent No.3, respondent No.3 atsofited comparative chart Annexure-R-3/23 as contended in Para-6 of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, on close scrutiny of entire material available on record, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appeilant holding that the selection of respondent No.3 was valid and proper. She appears to be a better candidate than the appellant, therefore, on the grounds taken by the appellant, the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered by the High Court as the High Court never sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Selection Committee. Thereafter a Review Petition was filed by the appellant, which was atso dismissed by the learned Singte Judge. (3) Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, appellant, appearing in person, argued that neither the appeilant nor respondent No.3 was having Ph.D. qualification on the date of advertisement but the appellant got Ph.d. Degree prior to respondent No.3 on 26.8.88, whereas, respondent No.3 got Ph.D. Degree on 22.9.88. Therefore on the dated of the interview i.e. on 9.9.88, he was having Ph.D. Degree to ;s»TT-'f WrifAppealNo.22Gof2Q09 his credjt, \^^6^;.resp©^dfnt^ even than i-eSp6ricterit^N<:R;3|^^ wnic^iF^^ct|st^|8Kayfe^ bisl^QNferftic^, h^;referreGl.^to ^he^Wo^^^ SupFen-iie ©ourti^DistncttGoUScfW^ShairniSn^S/izJanaflaf'arn SC^al Welfalv R^ideriti^SehOQMSociMw.^zi^aQa^^ anQther—ys-^.^'nMiSsSwvd^:^^^(^99^ ^hQltKumai'jSonMr^^^ni^ ^ineliSsncl^ffieivK^ SGC54. i::1 N (4) Qh the^her%hanc(,rt |@arr^ ^ ^ o^pG^y^hesffi^argOrS^t^ia0S':;s||]|tfti||ICT Jeatriey^'^Single^Jt^ge.'^^Hey^?^^ qualificattonsftirapp©intm|nttothe(3(3§t6fl-ec^yr^^ RsJ2200^400 was MasNr's D^gree ih^the^levant Suliject^w^ least55%imarks orifs;equiwterjtgi^^sricl,^OGKJ^ac^ TOeappellantandrespQndentNo.3bQth^ulffltM^h$ati qualifieations on thedate 6f rriakingtl of ^f:>lj^Qn j.e. 7.^ an6 affer due selection prc%ess, respood^No. 3^ Selection^eommitt^;v^JGhcannot^e;ie^ain|^ on the;above!grounds.';w'':.',;-'J.Y' .,j,'^ {5) iWe t^ve fteaKl^tlTe learHe^c|i|tsil^ and.1iave':alsopera^d'1:|i©ir©^r^sl^|®!\wn A ^ss£s^^ ^^ '"^ "'" " '. ' '':^ ^.SS^tSi, . ; .% w'y^':)! •s1 •Writ ADpeal No. 226 of 2009 i^^?' (6) tn M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), the mihimum qualification prescribed in advertisement was a seeond ctass post-graduate degfee. Respondent having a third class post-graduate degree was selected and appointed inadvertently withoufc scrutinjzing the copies of certificates. The order of appointment was made subject to production of original certificates. Subsequently on scrutiny of original certificates the respondent was found to be short of qualification and as such was not allowed to join the service. The above action of the authorities was hetd to be proper. How the said judgment is helpful to thepetitioner, we do not know. The present is not a case of not having minimum qualification with the respondent No.3. The petition is claiming his right on the basis of better candidature and not that respondentNo.3 was not having essentiat qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in politicat science. The petitioner has stressed very much that he got Ph.D. prior to the date of interview and respondent No.3 was not having such degree, therefore, he had a better candidature. The Supreme Court said time and again that the High Court never sit asan appellate authority over the decision taken by the Selection Commitfee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. This has to be decided by duly constituted committee, the reason being that the court has not such expertise. The decision of the Setection Committee can be interfered by the High Court only on liinited grounds tike iitegality or material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or the procedure adopted by the ?.. t':-:.':: Rl^: . ,^'v^. ^sss. si!^^ i Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2009 Committee vitiating the selection or on proved malafides etc. Nothing like the above was brought on record by the appetlant on which the selection process undertaken by the duly constituted Committee may be struck off or it may be held to be illegal. (7) In Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), the Supreme Court held that in order to avoid any uncertainty in such matter, fixation of a cut-off date is a must. However, in absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for fiting the application must be considered as a cut-off date. We do not find any controversy of such nature in the present case. In case on hand, in advertisement dated 8.2.88, no specific date was shown as cut-off date. However, advertisement clearly contents in Para-1 that the application form ofthe candidates must reach to the undersigned by 7.3.88, Therefore, in absence of any prescribed cut-off date fixed in the advertisement or the rules, as per above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the cut-off date, in present matter, would be 7.3.88. On the said date i.e. on 7.3.88, the appellant and respondent No.3 both were having essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer which was Master's Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record as the qualification like M.Phil and Ph.D., in the relevant subject, were the desirable qualification. It was further made clear by appendix to the letter dated 17.6.87 (Annexure-R- ^15) that the minimum qualification should not be relaxed even in -<-f s^s. ^s, WnfAopeal'I<R)..226.of2009 resp6Gt (^^eandidat^ v^©gh^ case dn h^h<3; aS?§fat^dSaB0^,^fHe^|pe|tai^iaf^ both «®rehawiBg^Sential^yalifieatiQnS^^^® TKe ge|)S^on ©isrrlFr)itf©e^called5^e ^iHteNi^ ^AassesSTneilt of was selected; If in all wisdeiCT^ of^ respohdent Np.3 was feund^^^^ appellant, jn absericieof^y^lggaljg^ the Seljectioin Coromiltee;OFthattKese|eeti ^it)i^sQ principles, the writ court (^nnotset-asicl^su^ Selecrtion ©ommittee;|as|ifsi Sgia§ai^^ i<yecision:'©t1;hf;:^^|l^^%Bm0t^&t|l|Ni^I^NH^^^^ the v^it coyrt cannof be^M .interferehce;in'th)sinfFa-court:.appeal.-:: :^^"::Y^:''^^ {8) TKe appeal has ho^merits, tHe sarT^^ andls hgreby^disn'riSsed.;.^';y^r.1,,^:^.'^ '- ':'& i N6oFderastocost. Sdl- .• Chief-Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge ;3'i sSMSI