HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6357 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No.16773 of 2000) Vinod Kumar Singhal S/o late Sri Bool Chand R/o 422, Purani Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar ………Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor, University of Roorkee Roorkee, District Haridwar & others …Respondents Dated :- 11th September, 2009 Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the University of Roorkee/respondent. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. By means of this writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure-11 to the petition). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent / Internal Auditor w.e.f. 1997 on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 30.12.1998. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.03.2000 (Annexure-12 to the petition) within a stipulated period. (iv) issue a writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) award the costs of the writ petition from the respondents. 2. In substance, a notification dated 19.09.1997 was issued by the University of Roorkee inviting the applications from the university employees (belonging to the cadres as noted against each post) for filling up the vacant posts of Office Superintendent and Internal Auditor through promotion by selection. As per the said notification, one post of Office Superintendent was reserved for OBC candidate and one post of Internal Auditor was reserved for SC candidate. The petitioner applied for both posts and an interview was held on 26.12.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his representation dated 02.01.1999 before the Vice Chancellor for consideration of his grievances. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 24.06.1999 for filling up the posts of Office Superintendent and Internal Auditor. The University issued a corrigendum dated 08.11.1999 removing reservati0on from the posts advertised. An interview letter dated 21.01.2000 was issued to the petitioner to appear for an interview before the Selection Committee on 02.02.2000. However, the petitioner had to be superannuated by 30th January, 2000. 3. The petitioner has not alleged in his petition that pursuant to notification dated 19.09.1997 he appeared in the interview and a final selection list was prepared. According to the petitioner, no further formalities were conducted pursuant to its first notification and interview and it was re-notified. The petitioner has alleged that the University was playing tactis for delaying the matter of promotion on the post of Office Superintendent; the selection process for the post of Office Superintendent was started much prior to the superannuation of the petitioner, but the University deliberately fixed the date of interview after the superannuation of the petitioner. 4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit alleging therein that the posts of Office Superintendent and Internal Auditor come within the category of ‘B’ as per Clause (1) of the Guidelines laid down in Chapter 21 of the Regulations; all vacancies of Category ‘B’ were normally filled by advertisement, except for specific posts covered by the provisions of guidelines given in Appendix ‘E’ & ‘I’; Appendix ‘I’ deals with the guidelines for promotion of Category ‘B’ & ‘C’ of the University while Appendix ‘E’ contains the guidelines for promotion of 1/3rd strength of Technical Staff from lower technical positions; Clause No.2 of the guidelines provides that the selection to the post for which only internal candidates are to be considered, the appointment was to be termed as ‘promotion by selection’ and if no candidate was suitable in such selection, the post was to be filled though open selection; pursuant to notification issued in the year 1998 the interview was held on 26.12.1998; but no appointments and selection were made because after conducting the interview certain issues cropped up regarding the reservation policy and it was resolved by a subsequent notification; the petitioner had applied against the advertisement dated 24.09.1999; some clarification was subsequently given in the said advertisement and a corrigendum was issued on 08.11.1999; but during the process of screening of applications by the Committee, the composition of Selection Committee the date of interview could be fixed on 02.02.2000; but the petitioner has been recommended for calling for the interview earlier; but the Selection Committee did not recommend him for appointment. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner did not dispute that he did not appear before the Selection Committee on 02.02.2000 after his superannuation. The proceedings and documents of the Selection Committee has been filed as Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit and perusal of which clearly reveals that the petitioner appeared as a general candidate at serial no.2 and he was not selected for appointment by the Selection Committee. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is apparent from the record that the appointment of petitioner was not recommended in the earlier selection; the earlier selection process was cancelled and it was re-notified in the year 1999; and the petitioner also appeared on 02.02.2000 before the Selection Committee after his superannuation. It is also revealed from the record that the petitioner has not mentioned in his petition that he had appeared in both Interviews and his name has not been recommended. From perusal of the counter affidavit and Annexure-8 it is revealed that he appeared in the interview and the documents in this support have been filed alongwith the counter affidavit. It is a settled position that if a selection process is made by the Committee it is for that Committee to consider the case of the candidates who appeared before it. None was appointed against any of the vacancies notified in the year 1997 and the petitioner has no right to claim on the said post. The right of the petitioner could have only be considered if any person junior to him would have been appointed pursuant to the earlier notification issued in the year 1997, he could have challenged the said process. The earlier selection process was cancelled as pointed out in the counter affidavit. Thereafter, a fresh selection process was made and even he was called for interview after superannuation and his name was not recommended by the Selection Committee. According to the petitioner, he is claiming the benefit on the basis of re-employment that he should have been promoted on a higher post. Even if this contention is taken into account, the Selection Committee had not recommended at all his name and he has no right to claim over that post as per claim of the guideline. Apart this, the petitioner has participated in the interview. If the petitioner had participated in the selection process, he has no right to challenge the said selection. It is also well settled position of law that the result of tests on merits cannot be challenged by the unsuccessful candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the competitive examination and who ultimately found himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in mind that in this petition, this court is not sitting as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidate concerned who had appeared before the competitive examination and the petitioner cannot urge before the court that he was given less marks though his performance was better. It is for the competitive examination committee, which amongst others, consists of experts of the department who assess the performance. The performance and the measurement made by the Committee cannot be brought in challenged only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate court and this court is not sitting as an appellate court over the assessment made by such an expert committee. [See (1995) 3 SCC p/486, Madan Lal and others Vs. State of J&K and others and AIR 2002 SC p/2322, Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla]. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) Dated 11.09.2009 LSR