The interpretation of the Statutes required the adjudging of the suitability of a candidate by a Selection Committee, and the decision rendered on the basis of concession is not a binding precedent.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, Chief Justice (Oral) -

CM No. 2723-LPA of 2022

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay. The delay of 33 days in filing the appeal, though vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1, is condoned. Application stands allowed.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1122 of 2022

Issue notice of motion to the respondents for 17.02.2023.

2. Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, on the strength of caveat, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2019 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1137 of 2018 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and others, has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner Raj Kumar Bansal and directed the respondent-authorities to grant the benefit of mapping and awarding him the academic grade pay of Rs.9500/- on the post of Associate Professor simply on the ground that he has completed the requisite number of years of service and has obtained 25 credit points without making him to go through the process of a Selection Committee to adjudge his suitability for grant of the said benefit.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the provisions of the Statutes governing grant of such benefit, apart from the fact that the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) has the necessary and requisite number of years of service, he is also required to be found suitable by a Selection Committee for grant of benefit of mapping in the higher academic grade pay. He submits that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra) relied upon by the learned Single Judge actually does not decide any issue and was passed on concession and therefore, cannot be treated as a precedent.

5. He further submits that even if the said decision in Mahesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has decided the matter relating to interpretation of Note-1 (6) of Schedule-E of the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2017, then in that eventuality, the interpretation given by the Division Bench to the said clause of the Schedule totally ignores the proviso and its impact on the interpretation which specifically provides that mapping for higher academic grade pay can be granted provided the candidate concerned has been found suitable by a Selection Committee constituted under the Statutes.

6. He submits that if the interpretation given by the Division Bench in Mahesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra) is permitted to stand, it renders the proviso otiose, redundant and meaningless. He submits that in case the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, while relying upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Mahesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra), is permitted to be implemented, it would amount to granting the benefit of mapping and higher grade pay simply on completion of requisite number of years of service and credit points without the requirement of a person being found suitable by a Selection Committee. He has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy and others 2020(16) SCC 799, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K.Kalyana Raman, 1992 (suppl.2) SCC 481 and U.P.S.C. vs. K.Rajaiah and others 2005 (10) SCC 15, to contend that the Selection Committee constituted for adjudging the suitability need not to record specific reasons for selection or non-selection of a candidate as the function discharged by such a Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory and is purely administrative. It is submitted that in the absence of any such requirement in the Statutes, the Selection Commi