IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 10742 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.7.2010. Reecha Madan --Petitioner Versus A.I.C.T.E through its Chairman and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Science vide Avertisement No.2 of 2009. Following qualifications were prescribed for the post in question:- Lecturer Qualification & Experience for candidates from teaching. First Class Master's degree in appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy (No minimum requirement). The petitioner who was working as Assistant Professor in Pharmacognosy in S.D. College of Pharmacy, Barwala claiming to be eligible for the post applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner was not called for interview which was scheduled to be held on 4.3.2010. The petitioner accordingly approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3842 of 2010. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2010 in view of the interview call having been given to the petitioner. This petition was disposed of as having become infructuous. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 17.3.2010. It is stated that on the said date only the petitioner was called for interview, whereas all other candidates had already been interviewed on 4.3.2010. The petitioner, CWP. No. 10742 of 2010 -2- thereafter, filed another writ petition being CWP No. 5534 of 2010 seeking setting aside of the selection/appointment to the post of Lecturer in the aforementioned discipline. This writ petition was, however, allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one after the interview results are officially announced and after seeking information with regard to the basis of selection, as is evident from the order dated 29.3.2010 passed in CWP No. 5534 of 2010. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application seeking information under R.T.I Act. The university authorities furnished the information to the petitioner, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to challenge the selection of the private respondents on two counts. (1) That no criteria was laid down for making selection (2) that the petitioner has better credentials/merit as against the selectees. In so far the first contention is concerned, reliance is placed upon the information supplied by the university authorities vide communication dated 22.4.2010. In response to the queries of the petitioner regarding the criteria, following reply has been given:- “5. No criteria has been laid down by M.D.U Rohtak for filling up the posts in the university teaching departments. However, selection is made on the recommendations of the Statutory Selection Committee after interviewing the eligible candidates.” Based upon the aforesaid reply, it is contended that since no criteria was laid down for making selection, the selection as a whole is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. CWP. No. 10742 of 2010 -3- It is admitted position that the selection was based upon interview alone. Various modes of selection are recognized. Primarily the selection can be made through four modes. (1) Written test (2) Interview alone (3) Written test followed by viva voce and (4) Academic record. Selection through interview is one of the recognized modes. It is not required that for interview also the Selection Committee should lay down any specific criteria or the marks of interview should be divided under various heads. The selection has been made by a committee comprising of following:- Prof. R.P. Hooda, Vice Chancellor, M.D. University. Chairman Prof. Arun Nanda, Dean, Faculty of Pharm. Sciences and Head, Deptt. Of Pharm. Sciences, M.D. University, Rohtak Member Prof. Karan Vashishth, Chairman, University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sc., Panjab University, Chandigarh. Outside Expert Prof. Roop K. Khar, Dept. of Pharmacy, Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi. Outside Expert Prof. Dharam Pal Pathak, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sc. & Research, New Delhi Outside Expert. Prof. S.S. Aggarwal, Principal, Delhi College of Pharmaceutical Sc. & Research, New Delhi Chancellor's nominee Dr. S.P. Vats, Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak Secretary Besides the Vice Chancellor of the university and three more members, there were three expert members from outside. No malafide has been alleged against any of these persons nor there is any basis for that. It is CWP. No. 10742 of 2010 -4- specifically mentioned in the reply to the R.T.I information that the selection has been made on the basis of the merit in the interview. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the selection is without following any criteria is without any substance and is hereby rejected. As regards the second contention of the petitioner, he has relied upon the comparative chart prepared by him as Annexure P-13. It is not the case of the petitioner that any selectee was not eligible as per the prescribed qualifications. The selection being based upon the interview, it is the performance in the interview which is relevant. Otherwise also, it is settled principle of law that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 does not sit as a Court of Appeal over the Selection Committees. The Court can only examine the manner of selection in exercise of power of judicial review and not the selection itself. There is no averment in the writ petition as to how the selection is bad. I do not find any valid ground to interfere. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.7.2010. lucky