IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 22 of 2009 Dr. Rekha Semwal ……… Petitioner. Versus Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand Government and others .………. Respondents. Mr. Mahesh Chandra Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Date of Judgment: 30-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) CLMA No. 4916 of 2009 (Delay Cond. Appl.) For the reasons indicated in the application, delay in filing the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 6 is condoned. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 22 of 2009 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that it is not necessary to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6. 3. Pleadings in this case are complete. 4. Three advertisements were issued by the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University (hereinafter referred to as the University), namely 35/2004, 39/2006 and 41/2007. Applications were invited for various teaching posts, including two posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. Out of the aforesaid two posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. 5. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid advertisements as a general category candidate. The Selection Committee conducted an interview of 192 candidates for the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. Having 2 conducted the aforesaid process of selection, the Selection Committee made its recommendations on 01.10.2007. In the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were approved for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The University then examine the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and eventually approved the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The petitioner has assailed the action of the University in selecting respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The primary assertion at the hands of the petitioner for assailing the selection process is based on a copy of merit list (appended to the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure RA-1). As per Annexure RA-1, the petitioner-Dr. Rekha Semwal was awarded 54 marks in column A. It is relevant to mention, that column A incorporates marks assigned for academic qualifications and other record. The total marks in the selection process were to be determined by adding marks awarded in column A to marks awarded in column B. In so far as the column B is concerned, the same contained marks based on performance at the time of interview. Annexure RA-1 does not disclose the marks obtained by various candidates in column B. As such, during the course of hearing, we require learned counsel for the petitioner to inform us the particulars of the marks obtained by the petitioner, as also respondent Nos. 5 and 6 during the course of interview. In response to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly inform us, that in spite of an application having made by the petitioner, the details of marks obtained by the petitioner at the time of interview were not disclosed. 6. Despite the assertion made at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 invited our attention to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid joint counter affidavit is being extracted hereunder: - “10. That in reply to the contents of para 15 of the writ petition it is submitted that, as stated above, the petitioner was also called for interview only on the ground that she was also eligible as per norms of U.G.C. hence was called for interview after short listing. The scoring system was adopted for short listing only but further implementation was not done because further process of selection in said scoring system was not developed and 3 consequently in the advertisement was also not adopted and in the advertisement also same was not published. The selection was conducted by Selection Committee looking into the papers of the candidates in interview which was duly approved by Executive Council. The petitioner even could not writ / solve one Test paper in Sanskrit language. All these facts were even mentioned in the report submitted to Additional Secretary of his Excellency the Governor / Chancellor of H.N.B. Garhwal University, State of Uttarakhand (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) by the Vice Chancellor. Hence it is wrong to say that Annexure Nos. 6 and Part 1 and 2 of Annexure No. 9 are contradictory.” A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit reveals, that during the course of interview, the petitioner was required to write out one test paper. The test paper to which the petitioner was subjected at the time of interview is available on the record of the writ petition as Annexure 10. A perusal of the Annexure 10 reveals, that at the time of interview, the petitioner was required to write one sentence in Sanskrit language. The petitioner erred in writing even one sentence in Sanskrit during the course of interview, and as such, the performance of the petitioner in writing the aforesaid one sentence was duly taken into consideration. Based thereon, the petitioner was not found suitable for selection to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has not disputed the assertion made in paragraph 10 of the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In fact, the acknowledgement of the petitioner to the written test is based on Annexure 10, appended to the writ petition itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute, that the petitioner was required to write a short sentence in Sanskrit during the course of interview, which the petitioner failed to write correctly. Based on the instant factual position, we have no doubt, whatsoever, in our mind, that the determination rendered by the Selection Committee in not selecting the petitioner was fully justified. 8. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative for us to notice the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect, that the Selection Committee could not have subjected to the petitioner to a written test at the time of interview. It is submitted, that during the course of interview only oral questions can be posed. It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention advanced 4 by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Selection Committee can pose any question as may be considered appropriate by it, including writing of a sentence, as has been done in the instant case, on the basis of which the suitability of a candidate, who appears before a Selection Committee can be gauged. Accordingly, we are of the view that the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand on and bereft of any merit. The instant submission is accordingly liable to be rejected, and is thus rejected. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 30.04.2010 30.04.2010 Amit