Skip to content


Dr. J.N. Srivastava Vs. Lucknow University and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1956 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1986All137
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantDr. J.N. Srivastava
RespondentLucknow University and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL.P. Shukla and ;K.D. Nag, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateB.C. Saxena, ;D.S. Bajpai, ;Umesh Chandra, ;Pankaj Bajpai and ;S.M. Bajpai, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....226 of constitution of india - appointment to post of joint director - selection based on merit - selection committee comprised of several experts - not open to any interference by high court. - - actually only one post had been advertised and the said resolution, which was recorded after the order of preference was indicated, was not strictly within the jurisdiction of the selection committee and may at best be considered only as a suggestion or recommendation. 4 who has been recommended by the selection committee as ranking first in order of preference should not be appointed against the already existing post. thus if both the rival candidates did not secure 54% marks and the selection committee, including the experts, accepted both the candidates to be eligible and did not think it..........deal with seriatim. 3. the first is that the recommendation of the selection committee choosing opposite party no. 4 as ranking above the petitioner in order of preference was contradictory to the unanimous recommendation recorded immediately thereafter to the effect that both should be appointed simultaneously. actually only one post had been advertised and the said resolution, which was recorded after the order of preference was indicated, was not strictly within the jurisdiction of the selection committee and may at best be considered only as a suggestion or recommendation. moreover, even where two appointments are made 'simultaneously' to two posts one appointee would rank above the other according to the order indicated by theselecting body, unless both are bracketed together. so.....
Judgment:

K.N. Goyal, J.

1. In this writ petition the appointment of opposite party No. 4 to the post of the Joint Director, Population Research Centre in the Department of Economics, Lucknow University has been challenged. We have heard Sri L. P. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.

2. Three points have been urged in support of the petition, which we will deal with seriatim.

3. The first is that the recommendation of the Selection Committee choosing opposite party No. 4 as ranking above the petitioner in order of preference was contradictory to the unanimous recommendation recorded immediately thereafter to the effect that both should be appointed simultaneously. Actually only one post had been advertised and the said resolution, which was recorded after the order of preference was indicated, was not strictly within the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee and may at best be considered only as a suggestion or recommendation. Moreover, even where two appointments are made 'simultaneously' to two posts one appointee would rank above the other according to the order indicated by theselecting body, unless both are bracketed together. So there is no contradiction at all. However, as the Selection Committee, the head of the department and the Executive Council of the University all felt that the petitioner also deserved to be promoted, the matter was taken up with the Government of India for creation of one more post, and may still be pursued with the Government of India so that the petitioner who was accepted to be a meritorious officer could also be appointed. But it does not follow that until such time as the petitioner can be appointed on a post still to be created, the opposite party No. 4 who has been recommended by the Selection Committee as ranking first in order of preference should not be appointed against the already existing post.

4. The second point urged is that the opposite party does not fulfil two of the essential qualifications advertised. Firstly it is said that he is not a high second class ML A. Because he had secured only 49% marks. Under the statutes applicable to appointment of teachers a high second class means securing of at least 54% marks, (being the mean between 48% and 60%) Actually the petitioner also secured less than 54%, as he secured only 53% marks. Thus if both the rival candidates did not secure 54% marks and the Selection Committee, including the experts, accepted both the candidates to be eligible and did not think it proper to extend, by way of analogy, the rule relating to teacher, to this post as well, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to make any complaint about it. The second contention about want of qualification is that the opposite party was not an M. A. in Demography and should therefore have undergone a formal course of study or training in Demography/Population studies. The opposite party, it is undisputed, had worked in the Population Research Centre for about 13 years. Actually, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, both the rival candidates were co-authors of two papers relating to population studies, apart from other work separately undertaken by them. The learned counsel, in our opinion, is not right in contending that the requirement should be read as implying that a candidate should have undergone a formal course' of study or of training. All that is required in the advertisement Annexure 1 is that the person'should have studied/training in Demography/Population studies.' We cannot add the words 'formal course' to this condition. The learned counsel urged that experience was separately required, and as such the same experience could not be taken into account for the purposes of the requirement of study or training in Demography or population studies as well. We are not impressed by this contention. We do not see why the same work could not be treated as relevant for fulfilment of the two different qualifications, namely, that of study or training as well as of experience.

5. The third point urged was that the petitioner was superior in merit as he had published more papers in reputed journals than the opposite party. So far as comparative evaluation of merit of the candidates is concerned, this was a matter for the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. The Selection Committee included several experts on the subject. We cannot sit in judgment over their selection except in a case where decision is so perverse that no reasonable person could come to it. Such is not the position in the instant case.

6. No other point was urged before us.

7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order stands discharged. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //