DURGA DEVI AND ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.
APRIL 11, 1997
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Teachers Plimary Scheme, 1991 :
Appointment of Voluntary Teachers 011 tenure basis-Cl1a/le11ged 011
C
the ground that more melitorious candidates were 1101 selecte~Tribunal
quashing the selection-On appeal held, Tribunal fell i11 error i11 arrogating to
itself the power to judge the comparative melits of ca11didates-lt was the
function of the Selection Committee-Matter remitted to Tribunal for a fresh
disposal 011 other issues involved in the case 011 merits i11 accordance with D
law, after hearing the parties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2744 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.92 of the Himachal E
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in O.A. No. 453 of 1992.
J .S. Attri and Devendra Singh for the Appellants.
T. Sridharan and P.D. Sharma for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
The appellants were appointed as Voluntary Teachers on tenure
basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No.
4 challenged their appointment inter a/ia on the ground that he was G
academically more meritorious then the appellants and therefore the Selec-
tion Committee was not justified in preferring the appellants to him. The
State Administrative Jrib);lnal allowed the application filed by Respondent
No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellants, by itself judging the
comparative merits of the candidates. The appellants have put that order H
855
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.
B
c
D
E
In Dalpat Abasaheb Solu11ke Etc. Etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan Etc. Etc.,
AIR (1990) SC 434 while dealing with some what an identical question, this
Court opined :
"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court
to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees
and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a
candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by
the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise
on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of
the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited
grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Co!Ilmittee or its procedure vitiating the selec-
tion, or proved ma/a fides, affecting the selection etc. It is not
disputed that in the present case the University had constituted
the Committee in due compliance with the relevant status. The
Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after
going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal
over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground
of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed
by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its juris-
diction."
In the instant case, as would be seen from the perusal of the im-
pugned order, the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the
F Tribunal by itself scrutinising the comparative merits of the candidates and
fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority
over the Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not
quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to
itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and
consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function
G of the selection committee. The observations of this Court in Dalpat
Abasaheb Solu11ke's case (supra) are squarely attracted to the facts of the
present case. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot
be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10th December, 1992 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the
H Tribunal for a fresh disposal on -0ther points in accordance with the law
DURGADEVIv. STATE OF H.P.
857
after hearing the parties.
We are informed that both the appellants and the contesting respon-
dent are in service. They shall not be disturbed till the matter is finally
disposed of by the Tribunal.
The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
Lex