The selection process for public employment must be free from illegal deprivation, and damages may not be warranted without evidence of such deprivation.

ORDER

1. Amendment of cause title is allowed.

2. We have heard both the learned counsel at great length. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment under appeal except to the limited extent indicated below. The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed :

"The petitioner if not had been illegally deprived of the appointment according to the pay scale shown in advertisement which now admittedly has been revised and raised would have received no less than three lakhs on a rough estimate. We think that it is not legally possible for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus for issuing letter of appointment w.e.f. 29-6-1987 and direct payment of back salary which petitioner would have received. However, we consider it just that a damages of Rs 1 lakh be awarded payable by the Lucknow University and opposite party No. 5 Dr Alavi, recoverable jointly from both or severally for the deprivation of the equal right of opportunity of public employment."

3. We are unable to support the above observations of High Court that the petitioner in the High Court (respondent herein) had been illegally deprived of the appointment as Lecturer in Arab Culture, Department of Arabic, Lucknow University, Lucknow. May be, the selection is wrong. On that score, it cannot be held that there is an illegal deprivation of respondents right to be selected. In spite of the qualifications, he might not have been selected, since selection is entirely a matter which rests with the Selection Committee unless of course vitiated by other grounds.

4. What had happened in this case was based on these observations, a sum of Rs 1 lakh had been awarded as damages as against the University which we consider to be unwarranted. Therefore, we set aside that part of the order.

5. In the result, we hereby hold (a) the case of the first respondent requires to be considered by the Selection Committee afresh on his merits in the light of the observations made by us as above without being influenced in any manner by the impugned judgment and (b) the award of Rs 1 lakh damages as against the appellant-University and Dr Alavi as ordered in the impugned judgment, is set aside. Such consideration as directed above shall be done on or before 30-6-1994.

6. The appeal will stand allowed. No costs.

For Citation: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 320