A
KULDIP CHAND
v.
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.
APRIL 11, 1997
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Service Law :
Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme, 1991 :
C
Appointmellt of Volunta1y Teachers on tenure basil"'---Challenged on
the ground that more me1itorio11s candidates were not selected--Tribunal
quashing the se/ectioll-011 appeal held, Tribunal fell in e1TOr ill an-ogatillg to
itself the power to judge the comparative merits of candidates-It was the
fullctio11 of the Selectioll Committee-Matter remitted to Tribullal for a fresh
D disposal 011 other issues i11volved in the case on merits ill accordance with
law after hearing the parties.
E
F
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2745 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.92 of the Himachal .
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in 0.A. No. 212 of 1992.
J.S. Attri and Devendra Singh for the Appellant.
T. Sridharan and P.O. Sharma for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis
under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No. 4
G challenged his appointment on the basis that he was academically more
meritorious than the appellant and that the Selection Committee was not
justified in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to
respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the applica-
tion of respondent No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellant. The
H appellant has put the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th
858
KULDIP CHAND v. STATE
859
December 1992 in issue.
A
The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in· complete
error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault
with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks
awarded to respondent No. 4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in
entering into the field exclusively reserved for the selection committee. The B
finding that the appellant 'manipulated' his selection is not supported by
any material and reasons and is purely a conjectural finding.
In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke, Etc. Etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan Etc. Etc.,
AIR (1990) SC 434, while dealing with some what identical question, this C
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. Whet4er a
candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by D
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 Committee or its procedure vitiating the selec-
E
tion, or proved mala 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
F
of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed
by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its juris-
diction."
The above observation apply to the facts of the present case with full G
force.
In the instant case the selection of the appellant was quashed by the
Tribunal by finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the
appellant without assigning any reasons. The selection of the appellant was
not quashed on any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 3 S.C.R.
A circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is hereby quashed and
the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the other
issues involved in the case on merits in accordance with l~w and after
hearing the parties. No costs.
B G.N.
Appeal allowed.
1
Lex