JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. In this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to any one of the four vacant posts out of the total 134 posts of Pharmacist (Allopathy) in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. An advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for various posts including the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) in the Health and Family Welfare Department. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner submitted his application and he was called for the written test and an admit card was issued to the petitioner to that effect. The petitioner Along with other candidates appeared in the written test on 27.2.2000. The result of the aforesaid written test for filling up the posts of Pharmacist (Allopathy) was declared by the respondents on 20.4.2000 which was also published in the newspapers. The name of the petitioner was not included in the said list of successful candidates and accordingly, the present petition is filed in this court seeking for the aforesaid relief.
3. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that while conducting the written examination and making the aforesaid selection bungling was done by the respondents and therefore, the result declared by respondent No. 2 does not depict the correct and true picture of the performance of the candidates. It was also submitted that the bungling in the said examination is also proved from the press reports which were published in the newspapers on which reliance was sought to be placed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner asked for the marks obtained by him during the aforesaid selection process but he was not furnished with his marks and therefore, his belief that there was bungling in the examination stand proved. It was also submitted that although there are total 134 posts yet the respondents proceeded to fill up only 130 posts without disclosing as to who many candidates were appointed from the General Category and how many posts were filled as against the reserved quota.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents however, submitted that the allegations made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner have no basis at all. She submitted that the written test as also the entire selection process was conducted in accordance with law. She also submitted that the petitioner did not fair well in the written examination and therefore, he could not be selected. In support of her contention the counsel for the respondents placed the relevant records before me for my perusal, which I have perused.
5. The petitioner was called for the written test and he sat for the same. The records placed before me disclose that the petitioner did not fair well in the examination and he did not come within the zone of consideration in the general category.
It is also disclosed from the records that the Board has selected in all 130 candidates the break up of which is as under:-
General Category : 70 Scheduled Castes : 19 Scheduled Tribes : 5 OBC : 36 Four posts of Scheduled Tribes were left vacant as no candidate for the same was found suitable.
6. I have perused the records which disclose that the petitioner received only 37 marks and his rank was 1290 in the said written test. The persons who had obtained up to 68 marks have been selected and have been appointed. The records also belie the allegation of the petitioner that there was bungling in the selection process. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, . In that case the Supreme Court while dealing with the case similarly situated with the case in hand, recorded in paragraph 9 of the judgment as follows:
“It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. 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 candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be 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 malafides affecting the selection etc.”
8. No such illegality or patent irregularity could be pointed out by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that it is not a function of the courts to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. The petitioner obtained only 37 marks and his rank was 1290 whereas the persons obtaining up to 68 marks only were selected. There is a huge gap in between the marks obtained by the petitioner and the marks obtained by the last selected candidate. The court cannot accept the press reports as conclusive and binding. They also cannot form the basis of fishing and roving enquiry. However, in the present case I have looked into the records in order to satisfy myself that the selection process was conducted fairly. I am satisfied that the same was in accordance with law and was fair.
9. The submissions therefore, of the counsel appearing for the petitioner are found to be without merit. The writ petition is dismissed but without costs.