TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prakash Singh who merely had participated at Inter-University level, more so many years all i.e. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was clearly valid and justified. Awarding of marks in field tests and its consideration for determining merit was valid and the view to the contrary taken by the tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law. The tribunal also failed to consider that similar marks were given by department to other candidate also. The Tribunal had clearly misconstrued and misread the departmental circular dated 9.3.1987 and 4.5.1995 and the scheme for recruitment itself, which amounted to manifest error of law. The finding of the tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained - judgment and order of the tribunal dated 17.9.2008 cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside - Decided in favour of appellant. - WRIT – A. No. - 63634 of 2008, WRIT - A No. - 59577 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2014 - Hon'ble Rajes Kumar And Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,JJ. For the Petitioner : Subodh Kumar,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi For the Respondent : S.C.,A.B. Saran,Rakesh Pandey,S.C. ORDER (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. Union of India, thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sportsman would be preferred, whose sports credentials for the last two years was of extremely high order. Pursuant to the advertisement, application of 11 persons were entertained. These 11 persons were subjected to field test, written test and interview. The department selected Ms. Suman Devi as the best candidate and issued appointment order to her. Aggrieved by the selection, Sri Gyan Praksh Singh approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 741 of 2006. 5. Before the Tribunal reply was filed by the department and the selected candidate, where after the Original Application has been allowed. The tribunal has referred to relevant circulars dated 4.8.1980, 9.3.1987, 12.11.1987, 30.9.1988 and 4.5.1995, issued by the department in respect of appointment to be made under sports quota. 6. The Tribunal was of the view that the selection process was essentially in two parts; firstly, the eligibility test to assess the candidates eligibility in terms of sports proficiency as per levels of participation and current form as per field tests and; secondly, suitability test to assess the candidate's suitability for the post applied for, on the basis of written test and interview. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s published by the department inviting applications for appointment to the post of Inspector under the sports quota. The advertisement prescribed the post, number of vacancies, scale of pay, eligibility, age etc. along with physical characteristics and fill requirement of the candidates. The achievements in the field of sports as well as sports authority from which such certificates were accepted, were also specified. The advertisement thereafter provided that the applications thereafter were to be screened and those candidates, who fulfill eligibility criteria were required to appear in a written examination in the english, general knowledge and maths and upon qualifying it would have to face the interview. Preference was to be accorded to the sportsman, whose performance in the field of sports during last two years was of extremely highest. 11. Admittedly, recruitment in the sports quota was required to be undertaken in accordance with departmental circulars. Relevant circulars have been brought on record or have been interpreted by the Tribunal. In order to adjudicate the issue involved, it would be necessary to notice the departmental circulars, issued from time to time. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard dated 4.5.1995 modified the first circular of 4.8.1980 and provided as under in clause (2) thereof. 2. In order to facilitate proper selection of sports persons, it has been decided that sports persons who fulfil the eligibility conditions laid down in para 1 of this Department O.M. dated 4.8.80 referred to above shall be considered in the following order of preference:- (a) First preference to those candidates who have represented the country in an International Competition with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs Sports. (b) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a State/U.T. in the Senior or Junior level National Championships organized by the National Sports Federations recognized by Deptt. Of Your Affairs Sports or National Games organized by Indian Olympics Association and have won medals or positions upto 3rd place. Between the candidates participating in Senior and Junior National Championships/games, the candidates having participated and won medal in Senior National Championship should be given preference. (c) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a University in an Inter-University competition co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qually clear from the advertisement and also the circular dated 9.3.1987 that written test was to be purely a qualifying one. 13. It is, therefore, apparent that the objective of making recruitment in the sports quota was to incentivise sports in the department and selection was to be made considering the extent/level of sports achievement of the candidate, who possessed eligibility for recruitment and had qualified the written test. 14. The tribunal, while referring to the advertisement and circulars, came to the conclusion that the recruitment was to be conducted in two parts consisting of eligibility test and suitability test. The eligibility test included sports proficiency and level of participation, current form etc. as per field test, whereas suitability test was to assess the candidate's suitability for the post applied according to the written test and subsequent interview. The proficiency/attainment of excellence became irrelevant if the candidate possessed any of the sports achievement and the criteria for selection/merit was the performance in written test and interview. 15. The tribunal, while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, has completely misconstrued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely misconstrued the circular of the department and clearly misdirected itself while examining the issue raised before it. Awarding of 100 marks to Suman Devi was viewed with suspicion and an observation was made that the department had pre-decided to select Suman Devi and for this purpose she was awarded 100 marks. This observation of the tribunal was wholly incorrect and was clearly an outcome of surmises. Since under the policy a candidate with international experience and was in form during the recent past, was entitled to grant of preference, as such awarding higher marks to her over and above the marks awarded to Gyan Prakash Singh who merely had participated at Inter-University level, more so many years all i.e. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was clearly valid and justified. Awarding of marks in field tests and its consideration for determining merit was valid and the view to the contrary taken by the tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law. The tribunal also failed to consider that similar marks were given by department to other candidate also. 18. The tribunal also took note of the fact that qualifying marks for written test had not been specified by the department. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the scheme for recruitment itself, which amounted to manifest error of law. The finding of the tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. 22. The Apex Court in Shama Prashant Raje vs. Ganpatrao and Others reported in 2000 (7) SCC 522, while dealing with the scope of powers of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in interfering with the findings of inferior Tribunal, has held as under in para 5 thereof:- 5. ----------. Undoubtedly, in a proceeding under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded by a competent tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, is supervisory and not appellate. Consequently Article 226 is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or order to be made. But notwithstanding the same, on a mere perusal of the order of an inferior tribunal if the High Court comes to a conclusion that such tribunal has committed manifest error by misconstruing certain documents, or the High Court comes to the conclusion that on the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
