http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KULDIP CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF H.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/04/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand                Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas J.S. Attri, Devendra Singh, Advs. for the appellant T. Sridharan and P.D. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents                          O R D E R 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 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 application of respondent No.4 and quashed the selection of the  appellant. The  appellant has  put the  order of the State Administrative  Tribunal dated  10th December  1992 in issue.      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  finding   that  the   appellant ‘manipulated’ his selection is not supported by any material and reason and is purely a conjectural finding. In Dalpat  Abasahe Solunke.  etc. etc.  Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc.  (AIR 1990  SC 434),  while dealing with some what identical question, this 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 candidate.  Whether a candidate      is fit for a particular post or not      has  to  be  decided  by  the  duly      constituted   Selection   Committee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    which  has  the  expertise  on  the      subject.  The  court  has  no  such      expertise.  The   decision  of  the      Selection Committee  can interfered      with only  on limited grounds, such      as illegality  or  patent  material      irregularity in the constitution of      the  Committee   or  its  procedure      vitiating the  selection, or proved      mala fides  affecting the selection      etc. It is not disputed that in the      present  case  the  University  has      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 an in comparative      merits   of   the   candidates   as      assessed by  the  Court,  the  High      Court went  wrong and  exceeded its      jurisdiction."      The above  observation apply  to the  facts of  present case with full 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 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 issue involved in the case on merits  in accordance  with law  and  after  hearing  the parties. No costs.