TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions for the post of Chief Extension Education Officer along with 79 other posts. On receipt of the applications, the University constituted a Selection Committee in compliance with the relevant statutes. The Selection Committee after considering the relevant merits of the candidates, on August 6, 1981 recommended the appellant to the said post. The Vice-Chancellor of the University accepted the recommendation and in exercise of the powers conferred on him, appointed the appellant by an Order of October 19, 1981. On October 20, 1981 respondent No. 1 Dr. Mahajan preferred a writ petition before the High Court being W. P. No. 3363 of 1981 and obtained ad interim stay of the appointment of the appellant. On November 13,1981, after hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two appointments. All the four appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The High Court has given four reasons to set aside the appointment of the appellant in Appeal No. 3507/89 while two reasons (which are common to both) to set aside the appointment of appellant in Appeal No. 3508/89. 6. The first reason which is common to both the appeals is that although the vacancy in the posts in question had arisen as early as in 1975, no applications were invited to fill the same till 1980. The High Court has also stated . that the University in its return, had not explained the said delay. We are at a loss to understand as to how the delay in filling a vacancy can be a ground for setting aside the appointment made. Assumi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proportionate period. The High Court was therefore not right in picking up this circumstance without considering all the aspects of the matter. The High Court has further relied upon this fact, to make out a case of mala fides on the part of the University. The High Court has however unfortunately lost sight of the fact that by the advertisement in question, it was not only the post of the Chief Extension Education Officer but 79 other posts were advertised. The post in the accompanying appeal was also one of them, and there is no allegation as far as that appointment or other appointments are concerned that the University had waited to fill in all the said vacancies to enable the selected candidates to acquire the requisite qualifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 1975 to 1980, the University had more than one Vice-Chancellor and Registrar. It is certainly not suggested that all of them had interest in the appellant. 8. The next reason given by the High, Court for setting aside both the appointments is that the appellants were comparatively less meritorious. This is what the High Court has stated on the point in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its judgment : 17. A bare look at bio-data at Exh. B and scrutiny statement, it would unmistakably indicate that except the 7th respondent all were duly qualified and eligible to be considered for the post of Chief Extension Education Officer and Deputy Director, Central Farm for short duration. 18. Coming to the comparative merits as disclosed in bio-data ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his context we have to consider the advertisement for filling the vacancies that was issued in the year 1980.... 9. 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 Candida tes. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the selection Committees have to be drawn from the teaching faculty and most of them have to interview candidates who were at one or the other time their students. That cannot disqualify them from being the members of the Selection Committees. In fact, as stated by the 4th respondent in his affidavit before the High Court, even the 2nd respondent, the aggrieved candidate was also his student. Curiously enough the High Court has discarded the said fact by observing that in point of time, the appellant was closer to the 4th respondent as a student since the appellant was his student at a later date. It is not necessary to comment further on this reasoning. As an aside of the very same reason, the High Court has also found the presence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
