Case: Dr. Akshya Bisoi &amp; Another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Others

held on 17 June 1998.20 The above extract indicates that the gradings allocated by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the final selection of the candidates “may be made” on the basis of the gradings/markings of the members of the committee and the technical experts. The expression “may be made” has been approved in place of “will be made” as recorded earlier.21 The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr Dilip Kumar Parida v AIIMS (supra) holds that the view of the experts who are co-opted in the selection process is only advisory and that the members of the Standing Selection Committee of AIIMS are not bound by their opinion:“21. AIIMS besides being a statutory body is a specialized body and having provided for a constitution of a Standing Selection Committee, we are in agreement with the contentions on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the role of the experts co-opted in the section process is merely advisory and the members of the Standing Selection Committee are not bound by the opinion of the experts and are entitled to evaluate the applicants for the various posts independently of the same.23. We may mention that the experts co-opted in the selection process are intended to evaluate the academic aspects of the candidates while on the other hand the Standing Selection Committee is concerned not only with the academic aspect but also with the other parameters viz. of suitability, demeanour, adaptability etc.”The above statement of position in the judgment of the Delhi High Court should not be read to suggest that the experts who are co-opted as part of the Selection Committee have no role and that the other members have to decide on the selection, independently of their views. Experts are co-opted in order to ensure that the Selection Committee is broad-based; that the selection is objective; and that the experience and knowledge of experts drawn from outside provides a valuable input in the ultimate decision. The policy adopted in 1997 indicates that the final selection may be made on the basis of the grading/marking given by the Members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts. Where there is a tie, the decision rests with the Chairperson, after discussion with other members of the Selection Committee. We cannot subscribe to the contention of the petitioners that it is only a tie which can be resolved by the Chairperson and in all other cases, the Committee is obliged to make its selection on a mathematical summation of grades. The fact that selection ‘may be made’ (this expression being in substitution of ‘will be made’) on the basis of the grading given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts suggests that the determination of merit is not merely a mechanical totalling of grades allotted. The Selection Committee has to act objectively. This undoubtedly requires giving due credence to the view of the experts. But while doing so, it must have due regard to all relevant aspects bearing on the interest of the institution. The Selection Committee has to assess the credentials of the candidates which would include the service profile of the candidate. It is in this sense that the Delhi High Court has to be construed to mean that while the views of the experts co-opted to the Selection Committee constitute a valuable perspective and input, they cannot be regarded as binding. The members of the Selection Committee would have to consider the views of the experts and to evaluate them together with all other relevant circumstances.22. In the present case, the record of the court indicates that while making its recommendations for appointment to the post of Additional Professor, the Selection Committee had borne in mind the performance of the candidates, their records as well as the opinion of the technical experts. The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2005 indicate that the views of the technical experts were considered. To re-evaluate what took place well over twelve years ago would neither be feasible nor appropriate. The policy decision of 1997 indicates that the gradings given by all the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the final selection “may be made” on the basis of the gradings/markings given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts. The Selection Committee which was constituted in 2005 considered the issue of selection and inter se ranking of the selected candidates. In making its final recommendation in regard to their order of merit, upon appointment as Additional Professors, the Selection Committee had due regard to relevant matters including the performance of the candidates, their records and the opinion of the experts. Hence, the ranking which has been assigned cannot be regarded as being in breach of the policy decision of 1997. It would be iniquitous to unsettle the position of seniority, over twelve years after the petitioners and the Fourth respondent were selected as Additional Professors. Even thereafter, when each of them has been promoted as a Professor, it is the Fourth respondent who has been ranked higher than the petitioners.23. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the grant of relief would unsettle the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the Fourth respondent well over twelve years since the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment as Additional Professors. This cannot be done. Some expressions of opinion in favour of the First petitioner in the departmental processes may have engendered a sense of hope. But that cannot furnish a legal ground to unsettle something that has held the field for long years. We close the proceedings with the expectation that these distinguished doctors will pursue their avocations at AIIMS without rancour. Our decision on seniority is no reflection upon their distinguished service to a premier national institution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. The above narration indicates that since April 2012, the consistent position which has been maintained by the First respondent is in line with the order of merit which was recommended by the Selection Committee by which the Fourth respondent was placed above the petitioners when they were selected for appointment as Additional Professors.In the present case, the record of the court indicates that while making its recommendations for appointment to the post of Additional Professor, the Selection Committee had borne in mind the performance of the candidates, their records as well as the opinion of the technical experts. The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2005 indicate that the views of the technical experts were considered. Towhat took place well over twelve years ago would neither be feasible nor appropriate. The policy decision of 1997 indicates that the gradings given by all the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the final selectionon the basis of the gradings/markings given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts. The Selection Committee which was constituted in 2005 considered the issue of selection and inter se ranking of the selected candidates. In making its final recommendation in regard to their order of merit, upon appointment as Additional Professors, the Selection Committee had due regard to relevant matters including the performance of the candidates, their records and the opinion of the experts. Hence, the ranking which has been assigned cannot be regarded as being in breach of the policy decision of 1997. It would be iniquitous to unsettle the position of seniority, over twelve years after the petitioners and the Fourth respondent were selected as Additional Professors. Even thereafter, when each of them has been promoted as a Professor, it is the Fourth respondent who has been ranked higher than the petitioners.23. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the grant of relief would unsettle the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the Fourth respondent well over twelve years since the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment as Additional Professors. This cannot be done. Some expressions of opinion in favour of the First petitioner in the departmental processes may have engendered a sense of hope. But that cannot furnish a legal ground to unsettle something that has held the field for long years. We close the proceedings with the expectation that these distinguished doctors will pursue their avocations at AIIMS without rancour. Our decision on seniority is no reflection upon their distinguished service to a premier national institution.