HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S No 5168 of 2008
Jhal Singh Patel
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
...Respondents! Shri Uttam Pandey Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri N N Roy Panel Lawyer for the State respondents 1 & 2
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 13/01/2010
: Judgement
ORAL ORDER
Passed on 13th day of January 2010
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. Challenge in this petition is to the selection of the
respondent No. 3 to 5 made pursuant to the advertisement
dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure P/1).
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are
that the Directorate of Culture and Archeology,
Chhattisgarh, issued an advertisement dated 25.10.2007 in
Hindi daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” for appointment on
various posts. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the
petitioner, applied for the post of Translator and Research
Assistant. The requisite qualification as prescribed for the
above said posts was Bachelor of Arts or equivalent
qualification from any recognized University in which Hindi
must be one of the subject. Preference would be given to the
candidate having knowledge of Sanskrit and Law. According to
the petitioner, he possessed the requisite qualification.
The petitioner was called for written examination and after
qualifying the written examination, he was called for
interview. Thereafter, on 12.05.2008, a list of selected
candidates was published in the notice board of the
respondent department in which the name of the petitioner
did not find place.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application
under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and
sought certain information with regard to the selection
process and the candidates who appeared in the selection
process, from the respondent authorities. Since no
information was supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Later on
some information was supplied by the Public Information
Officer (for short `the PIO’). On being unsatisfied with the
information supplied by the PIO, the petitioner again filed
an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, but
till date, nothing has been done.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the respondent No. 3 to 5, who have been selected on
the post of Research Assistant and Translator, possess less
qualification than the petitioner. The petitioner is
graduate in Hindi and Sanskrit, and he also possess the
degree of Law. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been given
preference over other candidates and he should have been
selected for the posts, as aforestated. Shri Pandey further
submits that the respondent No. 3 has given his postal
address in a manner which would influence the members of the
selection committee.
5. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State/respondents 1 and 2 submits that the whole selection
process has been done in accordance with law and there is no
infirmity or illegality in the selection process. It is
further submitted that preference was given to the
candidates who had knowledge in Sanskrit and Law. There was
no specific requirement of having degree in the aforesaid
subjects. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is baseless
and frivolous.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. The grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the
selection of the respondents are not sustainable. On perusal
of the tabulation chart relating to marks awarded under
various heads in respect of the post of Translator and
Research Assistant (Annexure R/1), it is very much clear
that the candidates have been awarded marks under various
heads and according to the total marks secured by them, the
selection list has been prepared. Even otherwise, awarding
of marks and assessing ability of a candidate are done by
the experts of the subject or the respective field and the
Court, in normal circumstances, may not interfere with the
proceedings and the recommendations of such committee
wherein the members are the specialists and experts in their
own field and subjects.
8. On perusal of the documents, it appears that a
candidate having knowledge of Sanskrit and Law would be
given preference. There is no prescription of having any
degree in Sanskrit or Law. A merit list was prepared by the
selection committee is produced and marked as Annexure R/1.
It is found that the petitioner has been granted 6 marks out
of 10 marks for having knowledge in Sanskrit and Law, the
respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 have been granted 4 marks each for
having knowledge in Sanskrit and Law. In total, out of 100
marks the petitioner obtained 12 marks, respondent No. 3
obtained 41 marks, respondent No. 4 obtained 54 marks, and
the respondent No. 5 obtained 14 marks. Accordingly, a list
was prepared and the respondents were rightly selected for
appointment.
9. The Supreme Court, in Union of India & another v.
S.K.Goel & Others1, observed as under:
“In our opinion, the judgment of the
Tribunal does not call for any
interference inasmuch as it followed the
well-settled dictum of service
jurisprudence that there will ordinarily
be no interference by the courts of law in
the proceedings and recommendations of DPC
unless such DPC meetings are held
illegally or in gross violation of the
rules or there is misgrading of
confidential reports. In the present case,
DPC had made an overall assessment of all
relevant confidential reports of the
eligible officers who were being
considered. DPC considered the remarks of
the reviewing officers. There was clear
application of mind. Respondent 1 did
fulfil the benchmark. Hence, the impugned
direction of the High Court ought not to
have been issued as the same will have the
impact of causing utter confusion and
chaos in the cadre of the Indian Revenue
Service and the Customs and Central Excise
Service.”
10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the
facts of the case and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself.
11. In view of the above, Applying the well settled
principles of law to the facts of the case, the petition
JUDGE