Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.@mdashDr. Nazma Begum, the petitioner was an ex-student of Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkeeya Mahavidyalaya, Port Blair. She was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in Hindi on a temporary assignment till regular recruitment was made in favour of the private respondents Smti Sebhani Das and Ms. N. Laxmi. Dr. Nazma also applied for the post. However, she became unsuccessful. She approached the Tribunal with the plea, although she did have the requisite qualification, she was ignored and appointment was given to the private respondents who did not have the requisite qualification. The Tribunal rejected her contention and dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before us. We heard the petition on the above mentioned dates.
2. Ms. Shyamali Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended as follows:
(i) As per the advertisement, the post of Assistant Professor would require Post Graduate qualification as also NET clearance. However, the candidates having Ph.D. qualification were relieved of the obligation to clear NET. Nazma did have the Post Graduate qualification as also Ph.D. Hence, she was eligible for the said post. Neither Laxmi nor Sebhani Das did possess any Ph.D. that would make them eligible for the post.
(ii) The selection process was vitiated by illegality that would be apparent on the face of the record.
3. Elaborating her submission, Ms. Ganguly contended, Nazma applied under the Right to Information Act and obtained necessary information from the appropriate authorities that would reveal, Sebhani Das and Laxmi did not have the Ph.D. qualification. They got M.Phil degree from the Hindi Prachar Sabha that did not have recognition from the University Grants Commission. Hence, the authority should have ignored such M.Phil that too, obtained through Distance Education from an unrecognised institution. According to Ms. Ganguly, the M.Phil degree, even if accepted, would not permit a regular teacher to teach at the Post Graduate level. The authority, to cover up their misdeed, gave appointment with the rider, the selected candidates would teach at the Under Graduate level only till they would obtain Ph.D. or the NET clearance. In this regard, she referred to the orders of appointment appearing at pages 96 and 97 that would contain identical clause as referred to above. With regard to recognition of the M.Phil degree, Ms. Ganguly referred to the documents appearing at pages 150-161 of the petition wherein we find, the Union Public Service Commission informed her that in the selection process, the Selection Committee did not prepare any minute. The University Grants Commission informed her, Hindi Prachar Sabha was not included in the list of University Grants Commission. It was a National Importance Institute under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi. Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras asserted, it was an institute of National Importance. They were duly recognised. The Distance Education Directorate duly recognised them. However, the research programmes through Distance mode were postponed at the instance of the University Grants Commission.
4. She also referred to various paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Union Public Service Commission before the Tribunal particularly paragraphs 12, 15, 22 and 23 to show, the UPSC miserably failed to justify their conduct. She lastly contended, this court vide order dated November 23, 2012, January 15, 2013 asked the authority to disclose the records pertaining to preparation of merit list. This court also directed, the University Grants Commission''s letter dated December 5, 2011 should be replied by the MHRD before the next date of hearing. No such reply was produced before this Court.
5. Per contra, Mr. Krishna Rao appeared for the Administration and opposed the application. According to Mr. Rao, the petitioner was also considered for the post. She, however, could not fair well, hence not selected. After participating in the selection process and becoming unsuccessful therein, she was not entitled to challenge the entire selection process. Moreover, there was no irregularity in giving appointment to the private respondents who did possess requisite qualification for the post. He referred to the decision in the case of
6. Mr. Roshan George, learned counsel appearing for Sebhani Das and Laxmi also opposed the petition. According to Mr. George, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge their appointment after participating in the selection process and becoming unsuccessful therein. He referred to the recruitment rules appearing at page 85 and contended, the same was duly followed. He would contend, University Grants Commission Regulation of 2009 relating to award of M.Phil and Ph.D. was merely a circular and did not have statutory flavour being blessed by Article 309 of the Constitution. The recruitment rule would suggest, the candidates having M.Phil decree in the same subject would be exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. Unless and until such recruitment rule was challenged, the petition was not maintainable. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
7. The court of law very often is burdened with ineffective litigations at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates in a selection process. The candidate would contend, he had a requisite qualification. He faired well. Hence, the authorities acted mala fide in not giving appointment to him. The executives conduct selection process in a public post as per the recruitment rules. Such act is exclusively within the domain of the executive and not amenable to judicial review. The court of law is only empowered to examine the decision making process, being the recruitment process, provided candidates would produce sufficient material to demonstrate apparent illegality, anything sort of that would prevent the court of law to entertain such petition. It is the human nature, the unsuccessful candidate would always say, he has done better than the others. He might be correct. The court of law would have no expertise to examine the veracity of such statement.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Lila Dhar (utsupra) observed, "The criteria for the interview-test has been laid down by the Rules. It is for the interviewing body to take general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot".... .... .... ....
It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive.
9. The rules at page 85 would permit the authority to recruit any teacher having M.Phil qualification without NET clearance at the UG level. The appointment given to the private respondents made it clear that their appointment was restricted to UG level only unless they would clear NET or obtain Ph.D. decree to teach at the PG level. The petitioner might have Ph.D. qualification. Qualification was not the only criteria for selection. The petitioner miserably failed to urge mala fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate, the recruitment rule was performed in breach. In absence therein, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the selection process or appointment given to the private respondents.
10. The Tribunal, in our view, approached the controversy in the right direction that would deserve no interference. The petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
Shukla Kabir Sinha, J.
I agree.
