PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 17-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7211-7212 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment/Selection – To the post of Asstt. Professor – In
one advertisement (Adv. No. 3 of 2010) selection process not
completed – Subsequent advertisement (Adv. No.3 of 2011) requiring
that the candidates who had applied pursuant to previous
advertisement need not apply afresh – Appellant (OBC candidate)
and respondent (General Category candidate) did not apply afresh
in response to subsequent advertisement – Appointment of appellant
– Challenged by respondent contending that he was not given any
credit for the “publications” in the subsequent selection process,
whereas credit was given for the “publications” in the previous
selection process – High Court allowed the writ petition directing
to add to the score-sheet of the respondent five marks on the
parameters of “publications” – In review petition High Court order
was affirmed – Plea of appellant that such “publications” were not
before the Search Committee as the respondent had not submitted
any “publications” – Held: In the facts of the case, it cannot be
said that the “publications” were not before the Search Committee
– However, it is for the experts to award marks for “publications”–
The Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot award
marks for “publications”.
Selection Process – Process of conducting separate interviews
for the posts under General Category and OBC Category – Held:
Such process is not fair and reasonable – Every person is a General
Category candidate – If a reserved category candidate is in merit,
he will occupy the General Category seat.
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 340
340
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 As per the conditions pertaining to
advertisement No. 3 of 2011, (subsequent advertisement) 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. It cannot be said that the writ petitioner has not
submitted any “publications”. Such “publications” were before
the Search Committee when the writ petitioner was interviewed
on May 13, 2012. [Para 12] [346-D-F]
1.2. However, 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. [Para 13] [346-G-H; 347-A]
University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde
(Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519 : [2013] SCR 521
– relied on.
2. 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,
the Court is 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
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
candidates or such other category as is permissible under law.  If
a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general
category seat. Therefore, the selection process conducted by the
University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable.  Consequently,
the University is directed to re-examine the selection process
by constituting an Expert Committee who shall consider the
“publications” of the candidates who were being considered in
pursuance of advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make suitable
recommendations accordingly by having a j

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.