Courts must defer to expert committees' assessment of candidates' qualifications in technical selection processes, interfering only on proven mala fides, illegality or arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Pursuant to a selection process undertaken by respondents No.3, 4 & 6-the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPSSC) in view of requisition issued to it by respondent No.2- Director Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as Chief Inspector (Boilers), Class-I (Gazetted). Petitioner, a participant in the same selection process, feels aggrieved, as according to him respondent No.5 did not satisfy essential qualifications No.(ii) prescribed in the advertisement or in other words, respondent No.5 did not have requisite 10 years experience.

2. The case.
2(i) Respondents-HPPSC issued an advertisement on 07.12.2022 inviting online recruitment applications from desirous eligible candidates for recruitment to one post (UR category) of Chief Inspector (Boilers), Class-I (Gazetted) (on contract basis). Closing date for application was 03.01.2023. Advertisement prescribed following essential qualification(s) (E.Q.): -
Essential Qualification(s)

2(ii) Petitioner, respondent No.5 and 12 others applied for the post. Respondents-HPPSC scrutinized the documents of these 14 provisionally admitted candidates. Their candidature was not found to be in order for varying reasons including for want of satisfying E.Q. No.II. List of provisionally rejected candidates was circulated/uploaded on the official website of the Commission vide Annexure P-3 inter-alia inviting representation from the concerned candidates against rejection of their candidature along with requisite supporting documents by 13.02.2023. This course was adopted in view of Clause 5(2) of the advertisement (page-32 of the paper book).
2(iii) In response to above, six candidates including petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their respective representations. To consider these representations, a committee was constituted by the Commission, which also included Additional Director of Industries as its Expert Member. The Committee deliberated and scrutinized the documents of these candidates. The Committee held the petitioner and respondent No.5 as eligible to be considered for the post. Candidature of remaining four candidates was rejected for want of satisfying requisite criteria.
2(iv) Petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared in the Personality test for the post of Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 11.08.2023. Respondent No.5 emerged successful. His name was recommended by the Commission for appointment to the post in question. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.5 as Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 26.08.2023.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent No.5 did not have 10 years’ experience in the Managerial capacity in the field of design/construction/erection/operation/testing/repair/maintenance or inspection of Boilers or in the implementation of the Boilers Act, 1923 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This was essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The certificates of experience of respondent No.5 appended with his application form fall short of satisfying the requisite E.Q.II. Reference was made to the experience certificates of respondent No.5 to point out the short comings, which as per learned counsel make him ineligible for the post for want of requisite experience in terms of the advertisement.
Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.5 refuted the submissions made for the petitioner and justified selection and appointment of respondent No.5. It has also been strongly projected that respondent No.5 was in possession of the requisite essential qualifications. Certificates of experience furnished by respondent No.5 were duly scrutinized and examined by the Committee including the Expert Member.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission elaborated and justified the selection process. According to learned counsel, th