Point of Law: Process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Respondent No.3’s selection to the regular post of Drawing Master, reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped General Category, and his appointment as such on 29.02.2008, has been questioned in the instant writ petition instituted on 29.07.2010.

2. Heard learned counsel on both the sides and considered the case file.

3. The petitioner, respondent No.3 and others received interview calls in the year 2008 for one post of Drawing Master, reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped General Category. They participated in the selection process. In the result drawn by the official respondents, respondent No.3 emerged successful with 13.57 marks, whereas, the petitioner secured 13.07 marks. Respondent No.3 was accordingly selected and appointed as Drawing Master on 29.02.2008. Two years later, the petitioner assailed the appointment of respondent No.3 on the ground that additional marks given to respondent No.3, for his possessing diploma in Library Science, ought not to have been granted to him as this qualification, possessed by respondent No.3 had no nexus with the post of Drawing Master, for which selection process was undertaken by the respondents.

4. During the course of hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General produced the record and referred to the office letter dated 13/19.02.2008, copy of which has been placed on record, under which, the criteria was laid down for filling up the post in question. As per this criteria, 5 marks were delineated as weightage to be given for additional qualification (percentage obtained divided by 25). The result (Annexure P-4) prepared by the respondents for the post in question reflects that the marks for additional qualifications possessed by the participants were awarded not only to respondent No.3, but to the other candidates as well. Apart from the marks awarded to the petitioner for possessing diploma in Art & Craft, separate marks were awarded to him for possessing 10+2 qualification. Respondent No.3 (the selected candidate) was not awarded any additional marks for his possessing 10+2 qualification, even though, he did possess the same. He was awarded additional marks for his possessing diploma in Library Science. Award of marks to respondent No.3 for possessing additional qualification was in terms of the criteria for award of marks prepared by the respondents. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not laid any challenge to the criteria formulated by the respondents for award of marks. In fact, no reference has been made in the writ petition to the criteria laid down by the respondents for awarding marks for filling up the post in question. After participating in the selection process under particular set of terms, it would be too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that award of marks for possessing additional qualification had no nexus for filling up the post of Drawing Master. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the selection criteria, he was required to assail the same at the appropriate stage.

5. As already noticed above, respondent No.3 was appointed on 29.02.2008 on the post in question. Even at that stage, no challenge was made to his appointment. This writ petition filed almost two years after the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 as Drawing Master (Orthopedically Handicapped General Category), suffers from unexplained delay and laches.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, delivered on 28.03.2023, in Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023 (Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others). In the said case, some candidates, who remained unsuccessful in the selection process, had prayed to quash appointment of selected candidates as Drug Inspectors. Outlining its several authoritative previous pronouncements on the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Courts recognize that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion