LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 01.02.2010 Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, through its Director. ............Appellants Versus Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. Appellants are assailing judgment dated 13.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge directed the respondents (herein appellants) to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of merit in the process of selection and consequently, if, there is no legal impediment or other valid deficiency, the respondents will pass the appropriate orders for the appointment of petitioner within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is furnished upon respondent No.2 (appellant). In the event, LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M) -2- respondents choose to appoint the petitioner for the post in question, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of appointment from the date other Professors in other disciplines were appointed. However, he will not be entitled to the monetary benefit except the seniority and fixation of notional pay by giving benefit of increments and pay revision, if any. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that no mandamus can be issued to give appointment to the petitioner. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, even if a candidate found to be suitable and is selected, he has no legal right to seek mandamus to appoint him. He further argued that none of the candidate appeared for the post of Professors in Mechanical Engineering was given appointment. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner argued that since post are still vacant and petitioner secured 49.5 marks out of 100 and another candidate, Dr. Pradeep Gupta secured 47.7 marks, in view of this, petitioner should have been declared selected and ought to have been given appointment. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner further submitted in another disciplines, candidates having secured lessor marks were given appointment. 5. Record of the proceedings of the Staff Selection Committee was produced before us. From the perusal of the LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M) -3- record, we find that only two candidates i.e. writ petitioner and Dr. Pradeep Gupta appeared before the Staff Selection Committee for interview. However, members of the Staff Selection Committee made following endorsement:- “The candidate at Sr. No.1 and 2 were not found fit for the post of Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering by the Selection Committee. Hence, both the candidates are not selected.” 6. Mark-sheet prepared by the Selection Committee further reveals that writ petitioner secured only 49.5 marks while Dr. Pradeep Gupta, another candidate, secured 47.7 marks out of 100. Having perused the record produced before us, we find no illegality being committed by the Selection Committee in awarding the marks. It is not the case of the petitioner that Selection Committee awarded undue high marks to other candidates despite of the fact that petitioner was more qualified and experienced. This Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Selection Committee, which is the expert body. It is a settled principle of law that ordinarily this Court does not act as an expert body nor disturb the decision taken by the expert body unless and until some illegality is pointed out. 7. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate, fairly stated that he is not challenging the LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M) -4- marks awarded. His only case is that since no cut of marks were fixed by the competent authority, hence, Selection Committee was not correct by not giving appointment to the writ petitioner, despite of the fact that out of the two candidates appeared before the Selection Committee, petitioner secured highest marks i.e. 49.5 marks. 8. This is not a case where Selection Committee has fixed any cut of marks. This is a case where Selection Committee opined not to select any candidate. As we have observed earlier Selection Committee, being an expert body, has not shown any undue favour in favour of any person and has found none of the candidate fit to be selected. 9. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 13.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ petition stands dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 01.02.2010 JUDGE ashish