1. Appointment of a voluntary teacher challenged on grounds of comparative merit and viva voce marks — Selection quashed by State Administrative Tribunal. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 706
1997(4) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Kuldip Chand -Appellant
versus
State of H.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2745 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2053 of 1993)
Decided on 11-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : J.S. Attri, Devendra Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : T. Sridharan and P.D. Sharma, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of candidates.
It is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of candidates.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Appointment of Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis-Appointment challenged on basis that Selection Committee was not justified in awarding appellant 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to respondent-Selection quashed-Tribunal fell in error in judging comparative merit of candidates and finding fault with award of 21 marks in viva voce to appellants as against 16 marks to respondents-Impugned order can not be sustained and matter remitted for fresh disposal. (Paras 3 & 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to selection based on superior academic merit and improper award of viva voce marks by the Selection Committee. (Para 2 )
3. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by scrutinizing comparative merit and viva voce marks without evidence of illegality or mala fides. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment of comparative merit for that of a Selection Committee unless there is illegality, patent irregularity, or mala fides. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned order quashed — Matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on remaining issues. (Para 6 )
6. To what extent can a court interfere with the decisions of a Selection Committee regarding the relative merit of candidates?
Courts cannot act as appellate authorities over Selection Committees or scrutinize relative merits. Interference is permitted only on limited grounds, such as illegality, patent material irregularity in the committee's constitution or procedure, or proved mala fides affecting the selection. (Para 4 )
7. Can a tribunal quash a candidate's selection solely by finding fault with viva voce marks without assigning reasons?
No. Quashing a selection by judging comparative merit or viva voce marks without assigning reasons or proving illegality is an error of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. (Para 3 , 6 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No. 4 challenged his appointment on the basis that he was academically more meritorious than the appellant and that the Selection Committee was not justified in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellant. The appellant has put the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.
3. The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in complete error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to respondent No. 4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the field exclusively reserved for the selection committee. The finding that the appellant manipulated his selection is not supported by any material and reasons and is purely a conjectural finding.
4. In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke, etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc.1, while dealing with some what identical question, this Court opined :
"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 candidates 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 mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant status. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
5. The above observation apply to the facts of the present case with full force.
6. In the instant case the selection of the appellant was quashed by the Tribunal by finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant without assigning any reasons. The selection of the appellant was not quashed on any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the other issues involved in the case on merits in accordance with law and after hearing the parties. No costs.
Appeal disposed of.
*******
