SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Sikk) 107

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
Dilli Ram Dahal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Sikkim & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 35 of 2019
Decided On : 28-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. A. Moulik, Senior Advocate with Ms K.D. Bhutia, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Additional Advocate General, for the State Respondent Nos. 1 and 3; Mr. Bhusan Nepal, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4; Mr. Saurabh Tamang, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5; Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 6; Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Senior Advocate with Ms Sabina Chettri, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9

The Selection Committee, although functus officio, is a proper party to address allegations made against it in judicial proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - The petitioners challenged the legality of the Selection Committee constituted by the Sikkim Public Service Commission for faculty recruitment. Key allegations included non-qualification of selected candidates and procedural violations. The court found that the Selection Committee was a proper party for adjudication of the claims raised. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Parties - The concept of necessary and proper parties in litigation is clarified, with the court emphasizing the necessity of including parties who can adequately respond to allegations against them. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contended their non-selection was due to an illegally constituted committee that disregarded their qualifications and the manual of the SPSC. They further claimed selected candidates were improperly chosen.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the Selection Committee was a proper party, allowing them to respond to the allegations despite their post-selection functions being complete.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the committee's constitution and the necessity of their involvement in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the Selection Committee, although functus officio, is still a proper party for addressing the allegations raised in the writ petition, which cannot be ignored simply based on procedural completion.

Result: Application for deleting the Selection Committee as a respondent was rejected.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the writ petition and parties involved. (Para 1)
2. challenging the selection committee's constitution and its actions. (Para 2)
3. counterarguments regarding the necessity of the selection committee. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. explanation of the appointment and rules governing the selection committee. (Para 8 , 9)
5. definition of necessary and proper parties in legal proceedings. (Para 10 , 11)
6. judicial discretion regarding the inclusion of the selection committee. (Para 12 , 13)
7. conclusion rejecting the application to remove the selection committee. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The petitioners have filed the present writ petition against nine respondents. Respondent no. 1 and 3 are the State of Sikkim and the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training; Respondent no. 2 is the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC); respondents no. 5 and 6 are the Sikkim University and University Grants Commission, respectively; respondents no.7, 8 and 9 are Assistant Professors in various Government Colleges (respondents 7 and 8 belong to the Department of Geography and respondent no.9, the department of Tourism); respondent no. 4 is the Selection Committee through its Chairman. The grievance in the writ petition is the non-selection of the petitioners and the selection of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted and that it has not applied its mind. It is further alleged that the Selection Committee have selected candidates who are not qualified and failed to consider the petitioners who have the required qualifications. It is alleged that the Selection Committee have acted against the University Grants Commission’s Acts and Regulations; have not verified and examined the genuineness and authenticity of the articles published of the successful candidates and have violated the provisions of the manual of the Sikkim Public Service Commission. Besides the aforesaid grounds of challenge against the Selection Committee, the petitioners have also alleged in their pleadings that the Selection Committee have committed various other illegalities in the selection process. In paragraph 18(v), the petitioners have alleged “That the selected candidates namely, Pranesh Pandey (Economics), Santosh Sharma (Economics) were scholars under same subject expert Prof. Manish Choubey (Dept. of Economics, Sikkim University) who was present during Classroom Demonstration. Ph.D. Registration numbers of the above named successful candidates working under Prof. Manish Chowbey as Ph.D Scholars are 14/PhD/ECON/01 and 14/PhD/ECON/02 respectively. They had been working under the same subject expert since 2014 as PhD scholars who had conducted the classroom demonstration, which is highly unjustified, unfair and objectionable.” Besides the aforesaid, it is also alleged that the selected candidates, i.e., respondent no.7, 8 and 9 had not satisfied various requirements and despite that they were selected by the Selection Committee in violation of the applicable rules. It is alleged that the Selection Committee was not constituted in the manner required and it also did not have the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor of the Sikkim University as required. It is alleged that the Selection Committee have not given due weightage to the extra additional qualifications secured by the petitioners and that the selection procedure was not transparent, objective and credible.

3. The SPSC has filed a counter-affidavit. However, the Selection Committee has not and instead, filed this application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2020, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of the Selection Committee as respondent no.4 from the array of parties. In the application, the Selection Committee have quoted the prayers in the writ petition and submitted that the task of the Selection Committee was only to conduct recruitment/se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top