L.P.A No. 534 OF 2002
With
L.P.A No. 535 OF 2002
------
Against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2002 passed in W.P.(S) No.1051 of 2002.
——
Dr.Rajendra Kumar Appellant In L.P.A No.534/2002
Dr.M.C.P Shaw Appellant In L.P.A No.535/2002
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Director, Higher Education Department
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh
4.The Registrar, V.B.University, Hazaribagh
5.The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna
6.The Secretary, Governing Body, K.S.G.M College, Nirsa
7.Sri Manik Chand Prasad Shaw
8.The State of Bihar Respondents In L.P.A No.534/2002
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Director, Higher Education Department
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh
4.The Registrar, V.B.University, Hazaribagh
5.The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna
6.The Secretary, Governing Body, K.S.G.M College, Nirsa
7.Dr.Rajendra Kumar
8.The State of Bihar Respondents In L.P.A No.535/2002
——-
PRESENT
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Appellant In L.P.A No.534/2002 M/s.Ritu Kumar, J.S.Singh
For the Appellant In L.P.A No.535/2002 M/s.Mahesh Tiwary, J.Pandey
For the Respondent State M/s.M.Tandaon, SC II, S.Shankar, JC to SC II
For the Respondent-State of Bihar Mr.S.P.Roy
For the Respondent-University Mrs.I.Senchoudhary
——–
By Court These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1051 of
2002, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, who is the
appellant in L.P.A N o.534/2002, although was allowed, the relief specifically
sought by him, seeking appointment on the post of Principal, was not granted by
the learned Single Judge, as the respondent authorities were merely permitted to
fill up the post of Principal in K.S.G.M College on regular basis. However, in the
2
interest of administrative exigency, the senior most teacher of the College was
permitted to be made Professor In-charge to function and discharge the duties of
Principal.
2. The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, appellant in L.P.A No.534/2002 had
filed the writ petition against the decision dated 6.11.2000 taken by the Governing
Body of K.S.G.M College, Nirsa, whereby and whereunder the respondent no.7 in
the writ petition, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, had been appointed on the post of Principal of
K.S.G.M College and the Governing Body of the College had appointed him
(respondent no.7) in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Bihar College
Service Commission, as it then existed. The petitioner-appellant, Rajendra
Kumar, had assailed the decision appointing respondent no.7 on the post of
Principal of K.S.G.M College essentially on the plea that he was not having the
requisite 12 years of teaching experience as per the advertisement on a
sanctioned post of Lecturer, which was the requirement even as per the
advertisement, nor he was possessing 1st Class post-graduate degree, which was
the requirement as per the guidelines of All India Council for Technical Education.
3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition on the averment that he was
a better qualified person than the respondent no.7, as he was possessing 1st Class
post-graduate degree in Commerce and was also having the requisite teaching
experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post of Lecturer, which were the essential
qualifications in terms of the advertisement. According to his contention, he was
wrongly denied appointment of Principal in the College by the Selection
Committee of the Bihar College Service Commission and the Bihar College
Service Commission indulged in illegality and irregularity by recommending the
name of respondent no.7 for appointment on the post of Principal, who was neither
having the requisite teaching experience, as per the petitioner, nor possessed
better qualification than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar.
4. The learned Single Judge entered into a scrutiny of the respective
qualifications of the contesting parties, viz the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar and the
3
respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, and was finally pleased to hold that neither the
respondent no.7 was having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years, nor the
petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, was possessing the teaching experience of 12 years
on a sanctioned post and therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow
the prayer of the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, only to the extent by which the
appointment of respondent no.7 was quashed and set aside and an interim
arrangement was ordered to be adopted by the Governing Body of the College by
deputing the senior most teacher as the Professor In-charge to discharge the
duties of the Principal of the College. This is how, these two Letters Patent
Appeals have been preferred – one by the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar and the
other by the respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, as both are aggrieved against the
impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge.
5. The appellant, Rajendra Kumar, in L.P.A No.534/2002 is aggrieved
of the fact that although the appointment of respondent no.7 has been quashed
and set aside by the learned Single Judge, further direction for granting
appointment to the petitioner by holding him better suited for the post of Principal
was not accepted and it was wrongly held by the learned Single Judge that he did
not have the requisite teaching experience of 12 years by drawing an inference
from the fact that after the retirement of two Professors in the Department of
History, no appointment of Lecturer in the Department of History had been made
by the concerned authority, from which an erroneous inference was drawn that the
petitioner was not having the requisite teaching experience.
6. The counsel for the petitioner-appellant, Rajendra Kumar, submitted
that the petitioner-appellant, Rajendra Kumar, was never a Lecturer in the
Department of History and all-through he was Lecturer in the Department of
Commerce and therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge from
the fact that no Lecturer had been appointed in the Department of History was
clearly contrary to the established fact. The counsel for the appellant, Rajendra
Kumar, also submitted that even if it were to be held that the respondent no.7 was
4
not having the required teaching experience, in view of the elaboration made by
the counsel for the respondent no.7 that the respondent no.7 had been appointed
as Lecturer in the Department of History in the year 1980 and had applied for the
post of Principal in the year 1998, he had already acquired 18 years of teaching
experience by that time and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge with regard to respondent no.7 was also erroneous and that was the plea
taken by the counsel for the respondent no.7 in both the Letters Patent Appeals –
one of which has been filed by Rajendra Kumar and the other which has been filed
by Dr.M.C.P Shaw, assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Confronted with the effect of the aforesaid argument advanced on
behalf of the respondent no.7, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant,
Rajendra Kumar, that even if it were to be accepted that the respondent no.7 was
possessing the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post, he
was less qualified than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, as the petitioner was
possessing 1st class post-graduate degree in Commerce, whereas respondent
no.7 was possessing only a 2nd class degree in post-graduation and therefore, the
Commission made a subjective assessment of the qualification of the contesting
parties.
8. This part of the argument again was dispelled by the counsel for the
respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A No.535/2002, as it was submitted that in the
light of the advertisement, the Selection Committee was fully justified in granting
the appointment to respondent no.7 as the essential qualifications indicated in the
advertisement were that the applicant should possess minimum 12 year of
teaching experience on a sanctioned post and he should be possessing 1st class
post-graduate degree or high 2nd class post-graduate degree with consistent
academic records which were to be counted from class ten upto the post-
graduation level. The counsel for the respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A
No.535/2002, further explained that in view of the requirements indicated in the
advertisement, the Selection Committee was fully justified in taking an overall
5
view of the academic excellence of the respondent no.7, who was possessing 1st
division in Matriculation, 2nd division in Intermediate (I.A), Graduation and post-
graduation, whereas the petitioner had secured 3rd division in Matriculation,
Intermediate (I.Com.) and only in post-graduation level, he secured 1st class,
which could hardly be a reason weighty enough to disqualify him (respondent
no.7) from being appointed on the post of Principal, as the Selection Committee
was fully justified in assessing the overall record of the contesting applicants.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 also relied upon an
authority reported in 2000(1) PLJR 319 (Rajeev Ranan & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
& Ors.) to contend that the selection made by a Selection Committee is not fit to
be reassessed by a court of law, when there is no apparent justification for doing
the same. He went to the extent of contending that as per that judgment, the court
of law should never ever interfere with the selection which has been made by the
Selection Committee.
10. While we do not accept the contention of the counsel for the
respondent no.7, appellant in L.P.A No.535/2002, that the Court, under no
circumstance, should question the decision of the Selection Committee, we
nevertheless accept the position that the selection made by a Committee of
experts should normally not be interfered by a court of law, unless it results in
gross miscarriage of justice to the affected party and the attending facts and
circumstance compel the Court to interfere. The case at hand does not fall within
the said bracket and therefore, we find force in the argument of the counsel for the
respondent no.7, appellant of L.P.A No.535/2002, that the respondent no.7,
Dr.M.C.P Shaw, over-all was better qualified than the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar.
11. In fact, the learned Single Judge had not entered into all those
aspects and had merely gone into the scrutiny as to whether the contesting parties
were having the requisite teaching experience of 12 years on a sanctioned post or
not. While doing so, the learned Single Judge had been pleased to draw an
erroneous inference on the sole ground that no appointment had been made after
6
the retirement of two teachers in the Department of History, which is factually
incorrect and would be reflected from the discussions recorded hereinbefore. The
respondent no.7, Dr.M.C.P Shaw, was appointed as a Lecturer on a sanctioned
post in the year 1980 and as already stated, he had already acquired 18 years of
teaching experience on the date of his application, although only 12 years of
teaching experience was required for the post. In so far as the academic
qualification is concerned, we have noticed, as indicated hereinbefore, that his
academic performance was better than that of the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, as
the petitioner, Rajendra Kumar, although was having 1st class post-graduate
degree, his (petitioner’s) track record right from class ten was not upto the mark. In
that view of the matter, the Selection Committee thought it appropriate that an
over-all consideration of the academic excellence was more suited for the post
and then granted appointment. It would be legally impermissible for the Court to
substitute its own opinion over the decision taken by the Selection Committee,
which recommended in favour of respondent no.7 for the post of Principal.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any ground to
interfere with the view taken by the Bihar College Service Commission and
therefore, we dismiss L.P.A No.534/2002 preferred by the petitioner, Rajendra
Kumar.
13. In so far as L.P.A No.535/2002 preferred by respondent no.7,
Dr.M.C.P Shaw, is concerned, it is fit to be allowed for the reasons recorded
hereinbefore. In fact, it was brought to the notice that by virtue of an interim order,
respondent no.7 has been continuing on the post of Principal and has by now
completed several years on the post of Principal and his selection having been
found to be legal and proper, we see no justification to interfere with his
continuance on the post of Principal. The direction of the learned Single Judge
permitting the senior most teacher of the College as Professor In-charge to
discharge the duties of Principal stands quashed and set aside and his
appointment on the post of Principal shall continue in terms of the
7
recommendation made by the Bihar College Service Commission, which has been
accepted by the Governing Body of K.S.G.M College. Accordingly, L.P.A
No.535/2002 stands allowed but under the circumstance without any order as to
costs.
(Gyan Sudha Misra.C.J.)
(D.K.Sinha.,J.)
Jharkhand High Court,Ranchi
The 13th January, 2009
AFR/Dey