Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh vs P. D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 273

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR and C NAGAPPAN, JJ.
Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4412 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27082 of 2012)
With
Pramodini Ambadas Lad – Appellant
Versus
Chancellor Dr. P.D.K. Vidyapeeth & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4413 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28373 of 2012)
With
Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4414 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28399 of 2012)
With
Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Chancellor Dr. P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4415 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28437 of 2012)
Decided On : 04.04.2014

Headnote:Maharashtra Agriculture Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983- Section 11 -Applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Research Assistants and 37 vacancies in the cadre of Junior Research Assistants- Appointments based on selection conducted by Selection Committee concerned were all the same made for as many as 131 posts out of which 76 appointments were made against the posts of Senior Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the cadre of Junior Research Assistants- Complaints made against selection process and the resultant appointments made by University-Chancellor found that entire process of selection of candidates and their appointments stood vitiated because of such irregularities- Directions were issued to Vice Chancellor to initiate action to cancel the appointments of the candidates concerned after following the procedure prescribed by law- Appeals against Judgment passed by High Court whereby writ petitions filed by appellants, were dismissed and the orders passed by the respondents terminating their services affirmed- Held continuance of petitioners in service would not, be justified having regard to the background in which the selection and appointments were made and eventually set aside by the University- All that the long years of service rendered with the University may secure for the petitioners a direction to the effect that in any future selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available for the next selection the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for them- Such of the petitioners who could try their luck in the next selection and who succeed in the same would also have the benefit of continuity of service-Appeals dismissed(Paras 24 to 26)
       Facts of the Case-
       Present Appeals have been filed against Judgment passed by High Court whereby writ petitions filed by appellants, were dismissed and the orders passed by the respondents terminating their services affirmed.
       Findings of the Court-
       A. The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to the petitioners no matter they had served the University for over six years primarily because the entire selection process was in his opinion vitiated by widespread irregularities in the selection process. The findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee upon a detailed and thorough examination of the matter fully supported that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that prevailed with the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or irrelevant so as to call for interference from a writ Court. The Chancellor was dealing with a case where the Selection Committee had called a large number of candidates for interview without following the proper procedure as prescribed by the State Government leading to the appointment of undeserving candidates by manipulation and favouritism. It was a case where the posts of SRAs/JRAs although carrying different pay scales were clubbed for holding a common interview. Even the criterion for assessment of the merit of the candidates was found to be faulty. Marks were awarded for qualifications although the thesis for such qualifications was submitted after the date prescribed for such advertisement. Marking system itself was found to be erroneous. Higher weightage was given to the performance in the interview as compared to academic merit. There was tinkering in the mark sheets of the candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made available in the meetings of the Selection Committee. The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee had on their own increased the number of posts of SRAs and JRAs to be filled upon. All these among other aspects were considered by Justice Dhabe Committee in its report which concluded that the entire selection process was vitiated. That beneficiaries of such faulty selection process should hold on to the benefit only because of lapse of time would be travesty of justice especially when deserving candidates were left out with a brooding sense of injustice and cynicism against the efficacy of the system that was meant to act fairly and objectively. Continuance in office of those selected by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong.
       B. The Supreme Court held continuance of petitioners in service would not, be justified having regard to the background in which the selection and appointments were made and eventually set aside by the University. All that the long years of service rendered with the University may secure for the petitioners a direction to the effect that in any future selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available for the next selection the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for them. Such of the petitioners who could try their luck in the next selection and who succeed in the same would also have the benefit of continuity of service. Appeals were dismissed.
       Result- Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby writ petitions No.238, 247, 251 and 389 of 2012 filed by the appellants, herein, have been dismissed and the orders passed by the respondents terminating their services affirmed.

3. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth invited applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Research Assistants and 37 vacancies in the cadre of Junior Research Assistants. As many as 3214 applications were received from eligible candidates against 61 posts so advertised. Appointments based on the selection conducted by the Selection Committee concerned were all the same made for as many as 131 posts out of which 76 appointments were made against the posts of Senior Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the cadre of Junior Research Assistants. It is common ground that the selection process was based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate out of which 40 marks were reserved for educational qualification of the candidate and his/her experience while the remaining 60 marks were set apart for viva-voce examination.

4. Several complaints appear to have been made against the selection process and the resultant appointments made by the University. Some of these complaints were in the form of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur while some others were addressed to His Excellency, the Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of the University. Out of the writ petitions filed against the selection and appointment process, Writ Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter alia prayed for a direction to the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 in regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed in the selection and consequent appointments against the vacancies referred to above. By an Order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007. Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment process. In writ petition No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S. Bache, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that the selection of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to the further orders of the Court. Writ Petition No.905 of 2006 filed by Archana Bipte and another also assailed the validity of the selection and appointment process undertaken by the University on several grounds.

5. It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor invoked his powers under Section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice H.W.Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay to examine the papers relating to the selection and appointment of the candidates concerned against the posts referred to above and to submit a report to the Chancellor as to the fairness of the selection of the candidates appointed by the University. A reading of the order passed by the Chancellor would show that apart from several allegations made by Dr. B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University and four others, the Chancellor had before him, a report dated 8th November, 2006 submitted by the Director General MCAER Pune from which the Chancellor noticed several irregularities allegedly committed in the process of selection such as violation of Statute 52, holding of common interviews for both Senior and Junior Research Assistants, appointing meritorious candidates from the reserved category seats instead of appointing them in the open merit category, selection of as many as 22 relatives of officers/employees of the University, absence of any short-listing of candidates for purposes of interview

Click Here to Read the rest of this document