LPA No.39 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.39 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.02.2010 Sunil Kumar ....Appellant. Versus Gurdial Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2009 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Market Committee – respondent No.2 on 4.10.2008 had issued an advertisement for one post of Peon and one post of Chowkidar for appointment from Scheduled Caste candidates only. Candidates for the aforesaid posts were called from LPA No.39 of 2010 2 Employment Exchange. Employment Exchange, Yamunanagar sent the names of 12 candidates for appointment to the post of Peon. Petitioner was one of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange for the aforesaid post. He was interviewed on 27.10.2008. Vide letter dated 4.11.2008, respondent No.4 intimated the Employment Exchange, Yamuna Nagar, that no candidate sponsored by it was found suitable for the said post. However, the petitioner came to know that his candidature was rejected being overage. It is alleged that he was not overage as on the date of interview, he was less than 45 years of age. It is further alleged that respondent No.5 being the son of respondent No.4 – Jagdish Chand, Secretary, Market Committee, Mustafabad, District Yamunanagar, was appointed without considering the merit of the candidates. The reason of his rejection was stated to be contrary to eligibility criteria. 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents by filing writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 8.12.2009 and appointment of respondent No.5 as Peon was quashed. Through the present appeal respondent No.5 has challenged the aforesaid order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel while placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and others, AIR 1990 SC 434, argued that learned Single Judge was not competent to interfere with the decision taken by the Selection Committee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra) in paragraph 9 of the judgement has observed as under: - LPA No.39 of 2010 3 “It will thus appear that apart from the. fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its Jurisdiction.” 6. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement has observed as under:- LPA No.39 of 2010 4 “It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 is son of respondent No.4, who is Secretary of the Market Committee and is the person who informed the Employment Exchange regarding the rejection of all the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is also cannot be disputed that as per written statement the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that his village did not fall within the block of Market Committee which again could not be a ground in view of the fact that as per advertisement, candidates of block Mustafabad were to be considered, and the petitioner was from block Mustafabad. The merit of the petitioner also cannot be said to be less than respondent No.5, as both the candidates were matriculate. Petitioner has an experience of seven years of working, whereas respondent No.5 has no experience. In order to check whether the merit of the candidates was considered by the Selection Committee, record was seen. It is surprising to note that there is no proceeding of the Selection Committee record. The resolution dated 27.10.2008 is only record showing list of candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and those who applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued. LPA No.39 of 2010 5 The resolution was passed by the Chairman, Market Committee, wherein it has been mentioned that Committee had interviewed all the candidates, and unanimously recommended the name of respondent No.5 for appointment. There is no recommendation on record. The reading of the file confirms the fact that everything was not fair and is in fact no interview was conducted by the Selection Committee, nor any assessment was made of the candidates who appeared for interview.” 7. In view of the judgement cited by learned counsel for the appellant in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra), we are of the view that learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that both the candidates were matriculate, hence merit of the petitioner cannot be said to be less than respondent No.5. This is well settled principle of law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own finding over the decision of the Selection Committee which is an expert body, unless and until some glaring mistake or bias is found. 8. Undisputedly respondent No.4, father of the appellant, was not member of the Selection Committee. He had no role to play in the process of selection. Merely because he conveyed the decision of the Selection Committee to the employment exchange, does not and cannot vitiate the process of selection. Undisputedly, the Selection Committee had interviewed all the candidates and recommended the name of respondent No.5 – appellant herein for appointment. Hence finding of learned Single LPA No.39 of 2010 6 Judge that everything was not fair, seems to be uncalled for. 9. As far as finding of learned that Single Judge that the petitioner was from Mustafabad and his candidature was rejected on the ground that his village did not fall within the Block Market Committee, is against the record. Undisputedly, the petitioner was interviewed and his candidature was considered by the Selection Committee and his candidature was never rejected. However, the petitioner was not found fit to be selected instead the appellant was found fir for the selection. 10. In view of the above, the judgement of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 18.02.2010 sk.