HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.28 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Vinay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents Dated : August 30th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for respondent no.6. 2. We are surprised that these writ petitions are being filed and the same are being entertained. In the instant case the petitioner was called at an interview for being selected for appointment to a post of Lecturer available in the respondent no.4. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and came to know that said Interview Board has been constituted by including the respondent no.5 as a member thereof. The petitioner tried to do his best before the said Interview Board, but did not succeed. Instead of selecting the petitioner, the Interview Board selected the 2 respondent no.6 and made a recommendation to the respondent no.3 for appointing the respondent no.6 in the said post. After having had come to know that the respondent no.6 has been selected and not the petitioner, the petitioner purported to contend that respondent no.5 was not eligible to be a part of the Interview Board. Surprisingly, however, the University opened its ears to the said contention of the petitioner and accordingly, purported to concede that there is a genuine dispute as to the constitution of the Interview Board. Instead of, however, sorting out the matter itself, the University referred the matter, without being authorised to do so in terms of the mandate of the statute, to the State Government. Surprisingly, the State Government looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that the respondent no.5 was not eligible to be a member of the said Interview Board. The matter stands-here as on today. 3. The fact remains that in terms of the provisions contained in the statute, when such selection is made a Selection Committee is constituted, of which one of the members is the Head of that Department in which the lecturer concerned would be appointed. The fact remains, which has not been disputed either by the petitioner or by the University or by the State, that respondent no.5 was the acting or incharge Head of the Department in which the lecturer was to be appointed. That being the situation, being the Head of the Department of the said department, the respondent no.5 automatically became a member of the 3 Selection Committee to be constituted in terms of the mandate of the statute. It is surprising that the petitioner has contended, which contention has been supported by the State, that the respondent no.5 may not have had appropriate qualification to become the Head of the concerned department. Whether the respondent no.5 could or could not become the Head of the concerned department had and has no connection with the matter complained of in the writ petition. The one and the only question in the writ petition was whether respondent no.5 in the circumstances could at all be a member of the Selection Committee. As aforesaid, being the acting or incharge Head of the concerned department, either rightly or wrongly, as a matter of fact, she was a member of the Selection Committee and as such no objection to that effect could be taken by the petitioner at the time of the interview or subsequent to his knowledge about the outcome of the interview. Further, after having had failed before the Interview Board, the petitioner could not challenge the composition thereof and that too after waiting for the knowledge of failure. The writ petition is utterly malafide and is dismissed. We have with great effort restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary costs in the matter. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.08.2010 Arti 4