IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.371 of 2006 BABOO RAI Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 08. 15/09/2008 Petitioner wants quashing of the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on the post of Lecturer in the National Institute of Technology Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as NIT) which was made as per the letter/memo NITP/1837/2005 dated 8.12.2005. Pursuant to an advertisement contained in annexure- 2 applications were invited for appointment on the post of Professor, Assistant Professor and Lecturers in the various steams. The qualifications and requirements were indicated in this advertisement and further details have been annexed by the petitioner in annexure-3. There were many applicants but we are concerned with the appointment on the post of lecturer, in Civil Engineering, which is the bone of contention in the present writ application. Petitioner’s case is that he has better qualifications, better marks and better experience vis-à-vis private respondents 7 and 8 namely, Reena Singh and Sunita Kumari but the respondents have deliberately and malafidely ignored the claim of the petitioner and appointed them on the post of lecturer, civil engineering. There were seven vacancies which had to be filled up. They were filled up after selection process was completed but petitioner to his surprise did not find - 2 - himself in the list of the appointees which is reflected in the details contained in ananexure-5. In terms of the advertisement the last date for making applications by eligible candidates was fixed as 15.6.2005. Petitioner challenges the appointment of both the private respondents on different grounds. The ground for challenge of appointment of Reena Singh respondent no.7 is that she did not possess M Tech degree when she applied for the post in question. She acquired the M Tech degree only on 13.9.2005. If this is the position then there was no occasion for the respondents to consider her for appointment. Another contention was that M. Sc. degree she had acquired in Environmental Science was not a recognized degree by All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred to as the AICTE). He then raised some question mark on the academic performance and achievement by annexing a self prepared chart as a comparative chart which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The ground for challenge for appointment of Sunita Kumari, respondent no.8 is that even though she was applicant under the general category she has been selected under OBC category. This could not be permitted to be done when she was claimant under general category. On these basic submissions as well as a serious - 3 - doubt having been expressed by the petitioner on the selection process, respondents, official as well as private, were directed to file their counter affidavit. The Court decided to call for the records of the selection which was made on the post of lecturers in the civil engineering wing. The Court thereafter not only verified the records but also heard the matter in length. Separate counter affidavits have been filed both by private respondents as well as by the NIT. Since the primary attack of the petitioner is first on the eligibility of the two respondents, the Court decides to discuss and deal with the rival contentions separately and a general discussion in totality thereafter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 contends that the present writ application is misplaced application filed by the petitioner more out of pique rather than on any substance. Petitioner was not found up to mark by the board and therefore, could not be appointed in the year 2005. Most of the objections raised by him are imaginary. Not only this, since the petitioner has already been now selected for the vacancy occurring in the next year, the present writ application remains more academic because even if the Court accepts the contention of the petitioner on the appointment he cannot be appointed on the post from the year of selection. At most a fresh process for filling up the post might have to be - 4 - taken. This fact that the petitioner has been selected subsequently and at present he is a lecturer in the same institute is not being disputed by the petitioner. The Court has been told that by knocking out the appointment of these respondents the petitioner will atleast get his seniority over them even if they are appointed and selected afresh. Respondent No.7 further repulses the attack of the petitioner that she was ineligible for making an application for the post on 15.6.2005 because she acquired M. Tech degree only on 13.9.2005. Counsel submits that a bare perusal of annexure-3 would show that the minimum eligibility for an applicant which was issued in terms of the advertisement was a first class Bachelor Degree or a first class Master Degree in the appropriate branch of engineering. When respondent No.7 applied for the post she had a first class Bachelor Degree and had already taken the examination for M. Tech. The results were announced only on 13.9.2005. But this does not make her ineligible in any manner because she had the basic eligibility. This was an additional higher qualification which she has acquired much before the actual interview was conducted for final selection, which was held on 24th November, 2005 and 28th November, 2005. The attack of the petitioner on this score therefore is misplaced. The Court has examined the advertisement and the eligibility details contained in annexure-3 and is in agreement - 5 - with the submission of respondent No.7 that she had the minimum eligibility of a Bachelor degree and her acquisition of M. Tech on 13.9.2005 had no reflection on her eligibility. On the point of lack of recognition of the degree which respondent No.7 had acquired in Environmental Engineering it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that even this is a figment of the imagination of the petitioner. The NIT was created on 21.8.2004. Prior to that it used to be known as Patna Engineering College which was under Patna University. There is no recognition required from the AICTE because teaching was imparted by a University. The recognition question comes into play only where a new technical institute has been set up as an identity that they must seek or beget recognition from AICTE. Mere coming into existence of NIT will not make the M. Sc. Degree in Environmental Engineering as invalid technical qualification as degree was issued by the University. There seems to be force in this submission also made on behalf of respondent No.7. Counsel for respondent No.8 submits that in the application which was to be filed by the candidates there was no provision for consideration of a candidate under OBC category or for that matter any category. A look at the application form, Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.8, would show that at the end of the form one had to tick whether a candidate was a SC or ST - 6 - category. This was not with regard to appointment and consideration under that category but there are two kinds of fees payable by general candidates and those belonging to SC/ST category. It is categorically stated both in the counter affidavit as well as urged at the Bar that the candidates were directed to produce their certificates in relation to castes only at the time of the interview so that reservation policy in terms of Government of India’s MHRD guidelines could be applied. Since this respondent belongs to an OBC category she has been appointed in that category. Her selection to that extent is very much in order. This contention and submission has been intentionally made by the petitioner knowing the facts fully well, only to mislead the Court. Even this aspect has been verified by the Court from the records and on perusal of Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.8 and the Court is in agreement on this score with the counsel for respondent No.8. The Court has now to deal with the general attack made on the selection by the petitioner. These general attacks are that a change of eligibility was effected by the respondent NIT on 30.9.2005 which may have been notified but then this change of eligibility has benefited respondent No.7. This ought not to have been made because the respondents ought to have struck on the initial terms of advertisement. Reference in this regard is the notice contained in Annexure-D to the counter - 7 - affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the NIT. The official respondents state that Board of Governors of NIT in its third meeting held on 27.9.2005, much before the actual selection process was completed, came to a considered decision that only such candidates who were holders of Masters degree in engineering would be considered for appointment and this was made uniformly applicable to all streams. This decision was taken with a view of raising standards of selection by considering only such candidates who had M.Sc. /M.Tech degrees instead of mere bachelor degrees as was originally advertised. By such a decision the standards have only been raised and not lowered. In this background it is wrong to submit that the terms of advertisement had been tinkered to extend benefit to any selected candidate. On this issue also the Court is in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. If any body had grievance against raising the bars or standards with regard to qualification it could have been the holders of a bachelor degree but not by a person like a petitioner who holds much higher degree. It is not the case of the petitioner that by raising the bar on the educational qualification part he had been eliminated or debarred from this consideration. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter addresses the Court on the comparative chart which has been prepared by - 8 - him contained in Annexure-6 and he says that he has better marks in some areas and surely better experience which included teaching experience vis-à-vis the private respondents. He also attacked the modality adopted by the Board of Selectors where in the final selection the marks obtained by a candidate right from Standard – X onward have also been taken into consideration. This ought not to have been done because again it amounts to expanding certain areas for consideration which was not laid down in the advertisement. On this point counsels for the respondents have made their submissions with the basic contention that the advertisement does not state that educational documents even from the school cannot be taken into consideration. After all appointment is being made on the post of lecturer for imparting knowledge to the generation next. There is no harm in looking into the academic records of all the candidates from Standard X onwards to see whether there has been consistency of performance in all the examinations which charts the academic career of the concerned candidate or whether the result of B.Sc. or M.Sc. was a flash in the pan. Further if this aspect has been uniformly made applicable in assessment of all the candidates then the advantage or disadvantage of such a modality may accrue in favour of one or all. If the Board of Selectors’ primary endeavour was to pick up the best of the lot then this Court - 9 - is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of respondent NIT that they have not breached the terms of the advertisement or adopted a modality creating a serious prejudice to the petitioner or to even those who finally did not make it to the select list. In so far as making a comparative analysis of all the selected candidates vis-à-vis the petitioner is concerned , the law is well settled on this issue that it is not for the courts to sit in appeal or act as a super selector over a decision made by a body of experts. In this regard a Division Bench decision rendered by the High Court in the case of Rajeev Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 319 is an answer to the contention of the petitioner. The Court also records that mere suspicion sought to be raised with regard to the selection process, for appointment as lecturers, even if strong cannot take the place of proof. It may not be sufficient ground to invalidate a selection process. This position also has been affirmed in the case of Rajeev Ranjan (supra). In view of the considered contention of the parties as well as verification of the records in this regard the Court comes to a concluded opinion that there has been no infirmity in the selection made on the post of lecturer of civil engineering. It is a case of more made than made out. The writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) - 10 -