LexSECY. (HEALTH) DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND F.W. AND ANR. versus DR. ANITA PURI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SECY. (HEALTH) DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND F.W. AND ANR. A v. DR. ANITA PURI AND ORS. AUGUST 30, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Se1Vice Law : Selection and appointment-Advertisement stipulated preference for higher qualification-Held : Person with higher qualification was not auto- matically entitled as of right to be selected and appointed. Selection and appointment-Awarding of marks for different f acets-Weightage to each facet-Fixation of-Held : in absence of statut01y mle or any guideline issued by Govemment awarding of marks to different face ts and fv::ation of weight age not arbitra1y. B c D Respondent No. 1 was a candidatf for t1'.e post of Dental Officer in response to an advertisement which prescribed B.D.S. as the minimum qualification but stipulated preference for higher dental qualification. The Public Service Commission awarded marks for different aspects in can- didates while evolving the selection procedure. Respondent No. 1 who had E the qualification of M.D.S. was not selected for the post of Dental Officer, and she filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that she was entitled to be selected for the post of Dental Officer on the basis of her higher qualification, which was allowed. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. p On behalf of the appellants it was contended that in the absence of any statutory rule it was but natural for the Public Service Commission to evolve a selection procedure of its own; that awarding marks for different aspects of candidates was not arbitrary and irrational; and that a person with higher qualification was not entitled to be selected as of right. G Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualifica· tion as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be giv.,. for higher qualification, the only meaning it H 361 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A conveys is that some additional weightage has to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. In adjudging the suitability of a person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory B criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is going to be held; his general aptitude for the job to be C ascertained in course of interview, extra-curriculum activities like sports and other allied subjects, personality of the candidates as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selec- tion is going to be held. Hence, the High Court was wholly in error in D holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent No. 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed. [365-G-H; 366-A:-D] 2.1. There is no statutory rule or any guideline issued by the Govern- ment for Service Commission for the purpose of evaluation of merit of the candidates. When the Public Service Commission is required to select E some candidates out of a number of applicants for certain post, the sole authority and discretion is vested with the Commission. The Commission is required to evolve the relative fitness and merit of the candidate and then select candidates in accordance which such evaluation. If, for that purpose the Commission prescribes marks for different facets and then F evaluates the medt, the process of evaluation cannot be considered to be arbitrary unless marks allotted for a particular facet is on the face of it excessive. Weightage to be given to different facets of a candidate as well as to the viva voce test vary from service to service depending upon the requirement of the service itself. [367-B-D] G Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Other Etc., [1981] 1 sec 722, relied on. 2.2. It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like Public Service Commission which is also advised by expe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.