SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA versus KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 08-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1144
1144
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA
v.
KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6217 of 2021)
OCTOBER 08, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Appellant appointed as Junior
Lab Technician in the first respondent-Institute – Challenged by
third respondent – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge – Appeal
allowed by Division Bench – Held: Marks awarded to the third
respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick determined
by the Selection Committee – No mala fides could be imputed to the
Selection Committee – Selection list not challenged by respondent –
His only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected since
he was more meritorious as he had better qualifying marks – Thus,
determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire
selection list to determine whether the appellant’s selection was
arbitrary was erroneous – Division Bench transgressed the limits
of challenge in the writ petition – Constitution of India – Article
226.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The third respondent did not challenge the
entire selection list dated 20 April 2009. He challenged the
appellant’s selection and sought a direction for his appointment
in place of the appellant. The third respondent did not challenge
the entire selection since he and the appellant had applied under
the same category, namely Category 1 – OBC. The basis of the
claim of the third respondent to the post was that since he had
secured higher marks as compared to the appellant in the
qualifying examination in the Lab Technician’s course, he ought
to have been selected for the post. It was in the writ appeal that
the third respondent challenged the selection criteria of allotting
marks for experience and the interview. [Para 13][1153-D-E;
1154-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
1.2 Before proceeding to refer to the marks allotted to the
third respondent and the appellant by the Selection Committee
for experience and at the interview, it is necessary to refer to the
criteria for allocation of marks devised by the Selection
Committee. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection
Committee state that the committee resolved to give
proportionate weightage to the length of the service, with special
preference to those candidates who have worked in government
medical colleges. For the selection to the post of a ‘Junior Lab
Technician’, the marks obtained in the qualifying examination
were assigned a weightage of eighty-five percent. Ten marks were
allotted to experience. Five marks were allotted for the personality
of the candidate, as adjudged in the interview. The Selection
Committee laid down two yardsticks for provision of marks for
experience: (a) length of work experience of the candidate; and
(b) preference would be given to those who had worked in teaching
hospitals of government / autonomous medical colleges. The
rationale of the Selection Committee on differentiating between
work experience in a private and government institute was that
those who had worked in a government institute would be more
suitable for the post due to the similarity of working conditions
owing to the fact that the first respondent is a government medical
institution. It is in this background that this Court needs to
determine whether the marks allotted to the appellant in the
category of experience and personality are arbitrary. The appellant
at the time of submitting the application had a one year work
experience in Babuji Medical College, Devanagere (a private
institution) and three years of work experience with the first
respondent. On the other hand, the respondent at the time of the
application, had six months’ experience of working under a doctor
who was undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant
have more years of work experience, he had work experience in
a governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded to the third
respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to the yardstick
determined by the Selection Committee. On a comparison of the
marks allotted to both the candidates with reference to the
yardstick determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides
could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an
SRI SRINIVAS K GOUDA v. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
obvious or glaring error or perversity. The C

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