Case: PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2. Initially, an advertisement No. 3 of 2010 was published inviting applications for seven posts of Assistant Professor viz. four posts under Unreserved category, one post under Other Backward Classes (for short, ‘OBC?) category, one post under Scheduled Castes category and one post in Scheduled Tribes category. The appellant and the writ petitioner were the applicants for such posts. However, none of the candidates were appointed to such posts. Thereafter, another advertisement No. 3 of 2011 was published. This time, advertisement was published for the post of Assistant Professor inviting applications for six posts under Unreserved category, one post under OBC category, one post under Scheduled Castes category and one post under Scheduled Tribes category. One of the conditions in the advertisement was that the candidates who have applied earlier as per revised UGC guidelines and also with reference to previous advertisements need not to apply again. However, they may send additional information, if any.3. The appellant and the writ petitioner did not apply again nor said to have furnished any additional information. In such selection process, the appellant was recommended by the Expert Committee for appointment against the post meant for OBC category, having obtained 60.83 marks.4. Such appointment was challenged by the writ petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that he has not been given any credit of ?publications? whereas, for such ?publications?, he has been given credit when he was considered in pursuance of the post applied in response to advertisement No. 3 of 2010. The High Court accepted the claim of the writ petitioner with the followingwrit petition is accepted and respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to add to the score-sheet of the petitioner five marks on the parameter of ?publications?. In case the petitioner then is ranked first, then subject to completion of all necessary formalities the respondent concerned shall proceed to in accordance with law appoint him to the post of Assistant Professor, Education.The appellant filed review petition which came to be summarily dismissed on July 30, 2015. Still aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Reasoning:
12. As per the conditions pertaining to advertisement No. 3 of 2011, the applications submitted earlier were to be considered. This shows that the ?publications? of the writ petitioner were with the University when the writ petitioner was granted marks for ?publications?. Even if the Selection Committee has undergone a change as well as norms of selection as per the Regulations, the Selection Committee was within its jurisdiction not to award any marks for ?publications?, if it was not meeting the requisite conditions. But surprisingly, the writ petitioner has not been granted any marks under the heading ?publications? in the interview held on May 12, 2012, when the candidates for under OBC category were interviewed but the writ petitioner was granted five marks for ?publications? when the interview was being conducted for the post of Assistant Professor under general category on May 13, 2012. Though, the writ petitioner has not appeared in the interview but the fact remains that he has been granted five marks for ?publications?. It is the same Selection Committee who conducted interview on May 12, 2012 and on May 13, 2012. Therefore, the stand of the appellant that the writ petitioner has not submitted any ?publications? does not merit acceptance. Such ?publications? were before the Search Committee when the writ petitioner was interviewed on May 13, 2012.13. But it is equally true that it is for the experts to award marks for ?publications?. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in the arm chair of the experts to award the marks for publications, that too, on the basis of an earlier selection process. The marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the heading ?publications? on May 13, 2012 were not before the High Court. The appellant was granted three marks for ?publications? in the earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement No. 3 of 2010. Such ?publications? were also required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.14. We find that the process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal. Though, none of the parties have raised any dispute about it but since the same is inherently defective, we are constrained to observe so. Every person is a general category candidate. The benefit of reservation is conferred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates or such other category as is permissible under law. It is a consistent view of this Court starting from Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 that if a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general category seat. In Indra Sawhney?s case, the Court held asIn this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.The concessions which were availed by the reserved category can- didates are in the nature of age relaxation, lower qualifying marks, concessional application money than the general category candi- dates.17. In view of the said fact, we find that the selection process conducted by the University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable.