Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Amitesh Grover – Appellant
Versus
National School of Drama & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 267 of 2019 & CM APPL. 18210 of 2019 (stay) and LPA 391 of 2019 & CM APPL. 27307 of 2019 (stay)
Decided On : 02-05-2023
LPA 267/2019 & CM APPL. 18210/2019 (stay)
Mr. Samar Bansal and Mr. Madhav Gupta, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocate, for R-1.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP and Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate, for R-2/UOI.
Mr. Rajeev K. Mishra and Mr. Nirmal Mishra, Advocates, for R-3.
LPA 391/2019 & CM APPL. 27307/2019 (stay)
Ms. Tamali Wad, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Rajeev K. Mishra and Mr. Nirmal Mishra, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Samar Bansal and Mr. Madhav Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP for R-3/UOI.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency in the selection process, adherence to fundamental rights, and the significance of maintaining performance sheets for grading interviewees.
Headnote:
Transparency - Selection Process - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India - Jaskaran Singh vs Punjabi University Patiala and Another - Babita Rani vs Punjabi University, Patiala and others, LPA no. 2081/2011 - National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481 - Md. Mustafa vs Union of India, 2022 1 SCC 294
Fact of the Case:
The appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) 7800/2012, where the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Extension) at the National School of Drama (NSD) was challenged on the ground of lack of transparency in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Extension) was quashed, and a fresh selection process was directed to be initiated within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of transparency in the selection process, violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, and the non-preparation of the performance sheet for grading the interviewees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the non-preparation of the performance sheet depicted arbitrariness and erroneous selection procedure, violating fundamental rights. It also relied on precedents such as Jaskaran Singh vs Punjabi University Patiala and Another, Babita Rani vs Punjabi University, Patiala and others, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs K. Kalyana Raman, and Md. Mustafa vs Union of India to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. This appeal impugns the judgment dated 12.04.2019 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) 7800/2012. R-3/Santanu Das had impugned his non-selection for the post of Assistant Professor (Extension) at the National School of Drama (NSD), New Delhi on the ground that no reasons were given, not even the performance sheet was produced by the Selection Committee, for his non- selection or for the present appellant being selected. Therefore, the entire selection process lacked transparency. The impugned judgment had set aside the selection of the appellant Amitesh Grover. The judgement has recorded the submissions of Santanu Das as under:
"...7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner being not satisfied by the selection procedure, vide an application dated 11.05.2012 under the Right to Information Act, sought the copy of interview performance mark sheet, detail profile of the candidates who had applied for the post and the details of the selectors. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 vide its reply dated 27.06.2012 informed that there is no provision to prepare performance sheet in NSD at all.
8. It is further submitted that the selection of the teacher ought to have been done through a transparent procedure and any interview or assessment can be done transparently and fairly only by recording the observations of the selectors and then judging the most suitable candidate for the post on the basis of those observations. It provides an authenticity to the entire selection process. However, the non-preparation of the performance sheet apparently depicts the arbitrariness and extraneous consideration in the selection procedures. Thus, action of the respondent is in violation of fundamental rights acquainted under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent cannot curtail rights of citizens which guarantees the right to be treated equal. Article 16 ensures statutory right to the applicant to have equality of opportunity in public employment.
9. The respondent no. 1 has failed to justify the transparency of the selection procedure, in view of the fact that respondent no.1did not prepare and maintain any performance sheet of the candidates who appeared in the interview for the post in question. Thus, the whole process of selection is illegal and contrary to public policy and public interest and it is therefore, liable to be set aside.
10. In case of Jaskaran Singh vs Punjabi University Patiala and Another, decided on 15.05.2015 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, held that if neither grading nor criteria is laid down, then how the performance of the candidates has been assessed by the Interview Board and how a candidate, who has an excellent academic and research record, was found to have been weak before the Interview Board.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the selection on the ground that the Selection Committee has failed to adopt any criteria for assessing the respective merits of the candidates and the respondents were directed to make fresh selection by calling all shortlisted candidates for interview after laying down the criteria. The said judgement has been upheld by the division bench of the aforesaid court in the case of Babita Rani vs Punjabi University, Patiala and others, LPA no. 2081/2011 vide order dated 14.11.2011 whereby observed that the selection is to be made only on the performance of the candidates before the Selection Board..."
2. The learned Single Judge has reasoned as under:
"...20. As admitted, NSD is an institution fully funded by the Central Government through the Ministry of Culture, therefore, the Brochure on SC/ST reservation is applicable. When the petitioner was not selected for the post in question he made an application dated 11.05.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought information regarding list of teaching staffs who belongs to the
