IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 321 of 2005 (S/B) Nikhil Kumar Pant. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ………. Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging selection of the private respondent for the post of Principal of the respondent Polytechnic College. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was better-suited for the post, but, ignoring the suitability of the petitioner, private respondent was selected mala fide and the same is apparent on the face of records of the case. It is the contention of the petitioner that before the advertisement, which resulted in the selection, there was yet another advertisement for the self-same purpose. The private respondent responded to the said advertisement and the petitioner too responded to the said advertisement. While the petitioner could not appear before the selection committee in course of viva-voce / interview, private respondent did appear, but despite that, he was not selected. The selection committee felt that people, who had responded and who had been interviewed, amongst them, were not suitable for being appointed for the post in question. It is the contention of the petitioner that the selection committee, constituted subsequently to adjudge the suitability of the candidates, who responded to the subsequent advertisement, was altered. The said altered selection committee, though there was no change in the status of the private respondent in the meantime, selected the private respondent and one of them, being the authority competent to grant 2 approval to the selection, on the date of the selection granted approval thereto. It was contended that the selection committee, in fact, made a farce of selection, for they were pre-determined to select the private respondent. It was also contended that in order to weed-out the petitioner from the race, it was shown that the petitioner has not produced the No Objection from his employer, whereas, as stated in the counter affidavit, the true reason was eagerness on the part of the petitioner to serve as Principal of the respondent Polytechnic College at a salary less than what the petitioner was then receiving from his the then employer. It was also contended that non-production of No Objection from the employer of the petitioner could not be such a serious deficiency that on the basis thereof, the candidature of the petitioner could be ignored. At the same time, eagerness shown by the petitioner to join at a salary less than what the petitioner was then getting was also of no consequence, inasmuch as, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner, who was eager to serve in the field of education, did not express such inclination at the cost of sacrificing his the then salary in course of the selection process. 2. Because the private respondent was not selected by the previous selection committee, it cannot be said that the subsequent selection committee could not select the private respondent. The fact that the post of Principal of the College was lying vacant for a considerable period of time is evident from two advertisements and, accordingly, if the person, competent to grant approval to the selection, granted approval thereto on the date of selection, the same cannot be questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the Minutes of the selection committee, where it had been recorded that the private respondent must be appointed. It was contended that the said aspect of the matter also indicates that the respondents were acting with closed mind to appoint the private respondent. We think if the sentence is read in its true perspective, the word “must” should be read as “may”, inasmuch as, despite the private respondent being an existing employee of the respondent College, while recommending appointment of the said respondent as Principal of the College, the selection committee indicated 3 that he may be appointed, but he should remain as a probationer for two years. 3. The fact that the petitioner could not produce letter of No Objection before the selection committee at the time of interview is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that in the advertisement, it had been indicated that a candidate responding to the advertisement, if is in the employment of the State Government or a State or Central Undertaking, he shall produce a No Objection Certificate at the time of interview. Petitioner is not a State Government employee. He, at the same time, is not an employee of a State or a Central Undertaking. He, however, is an employee of an Undertaking jointly owned by the State Government and the Central Government. It is too technical to urge that the advertisement did not cover employees of such Undertaking. We feel that the advertisement made it clear that an employee of an Undertaking, owned by the State Government or by the Central Government, and should be read as owned jointly by both of them, should produce a No Objection and the same having not been produced by the petitioner, the petitioner permitted himself to be withdrawn from the race for the selection. 4. Assuming that the petitioner did not withdraw himself from the race, but still then by reason of selection of the private respondent, we do not think that the petitioner suffered in any manner and, accordingly, could at all be aggrieved thereby. The fact remains that the petitioner is a Post Graduate. However, the advertisement did not require a Post Graduate. It required a Graduate. There is no dispute that at the graduation level, private respondent obtained better marks than the petitioner and, accordingly, he should be deemed to be better than the petitioner in academics. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a Circular containing instructions issued by the State of U.P. in relation to selection and appointment of Principals and Teachers of aided Polytechnic Colleges as that of the respondent Polytechnic College. The learned counsel also drew our attention to that part of the Circular, which specifically mentions giving of weightage to the Post 4 Graduate Degree obtained by a candidate. It was, accordingly, submitted that in such circumstances, it was mandatory on the part of the selection committee to give weightage to the Post Graduate Degree of the petitioner and, if the same had been given, petitioner would have got better marks in academics than the private respondent. We do not think so. If Post Graduation was a necessity for the appointment or if Post Graduation was a desirable qualification, then of course weightage for the Post Graduation was required to be given, but if not, by obtaining a Post Graduation, a candidate could not better his marks obtained in Graduation than a person, who in fact got better marks than him in Graduation. Neither the advertisement, nor the instructions contained in the said Circular made it either explicit or implied that Post Graduation is either a requirement or the same is desirable. In the event, respondent Polytechnic College had decided that the Principal, to be appointed by them, would be a Post Graduate or felt that such a qualification would be desirable and had indicated the same in the advertisement, of course then in the matter of selection, the selection committee would have had become bound to give appropriate weightage to the Post Graduation qualification. 5. In the circumstances, we find no force in the challenge thrown to the selection and appointment of the private respondent. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 G