SAJEESH BABU K. versus N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 9 S.C.R. 849 
SAJEESH BABU K. 
v. 
N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7599 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ-Petition -
Challenging selection for LPG distributorship and the 
genuineness of the experience certificates produced by the 
C 
selected candidate - Selection done by qualified persons -
Genuineness of the certificates also verified by the selector -
Single Judge of High Court quashing the distributorship 
doubting the correctness of the certificates - Division Bench 
of High Court affirming the order- On appeal, held: In a matter D 
of selection by Expert Committee consisting of qualified 
persons in a particular field, normally, the courts should be 
slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, 
unless there is allegation of ma/a fide against the experts -
On facts, selection was by experts, no ma/a fide was alleged E 
against them - Genuineness of the experience certificate was 
duly verified - On equity also selection was correct as the 
selected candidate was unemployed - High Court ought not 
to have sat as an appellate court on recommendations of the 
expert committee - Public Distribution - Equity. 
F 
Respondent No. 2, a Public Sector Oil Company, 
engaged in refining of crude oil and marketing of various 
petroleum products, invited applications fro grant of LPG 
distributorship. 41 persons, including the appellant and 
respondent No. 1 and 3 applied for the same. Respondent G 
No. 2 selected the appellant after holding interview and 
evaluating him as per the procedure prescribed under 
the guidelines. In order to ascertain the genuineness of 
849 
H 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A the contents of the experience certificates (Exh. Nos. P2 
and P3), respondent No. 2 deputed responsible persons. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, challenging the 
genuineness of the experience certificates produced by 
8 the appellant. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
petition quashing the distributors~ip. Writ appeal against 
the same was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In a matter of appointment/selection by an 
Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons 
in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow 
to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, 
o unless there is any allegation of mala tides against the 
experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. 
There is no allegation of mala tides against the 3 experts 
in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, it 
would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave 
E the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who 
are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the 
work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee 
evaluated the experience certificates produced by the 
appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific 
F questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, 
hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In 
such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have 
sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made 
by the Expert Committee. Interference by the High Court 
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of 
G the Constitution of India is not warranted. [Paras 15 and 
18] [859-C; 861-F-H; 862-A] 
2. In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the 
Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as 
H to this Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness 
SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS. 
851 
of the contents of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 
A 
and P3, respondent No. 2 deputed responsible persons 
for verification and, in fact, they met the issuing authority 
and were satisfied with the correctness of their statement. 
In view of this aspect, the Single Judge as well as the 
Division Bench committed an error in interfering with the B 
decision of the Selection Committee. [Para 19) [862-B-D] 
3. Even on equity, the appellant is an unemployed 
M.Tech post-Graduate and the contesting respondent 
No.1 is working as an Assistant Engineer in the State C 
Electricity Board, in other words, he is fully employed on 
the date of the selection of LPG distributorship. From any 
angle, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the 
decision of the Selection Committee, particularly, in the 
absence of any mala

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