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
| 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
The Selection Committee, although functus officio, is a proper party to address allegations made against it in judicial proceedings.
Statutory procedures for appointment must be strictly followed; non-adherence renders any resultant appointment illegal.
The doctrine of bias and the principle of natural justice were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent selection process free from nepotism and favoritism.
The court upheld the validity of the university's selection process, emphasizing statutory compliance, lack of demonstrated irregularities, and proper formation of the selection committee despite a v....
The reconstitution of a Selection Committee during an ongoing interview process is illegal and arbitrary, necessitating a fresh selection process.
The withdrawal of a selection process can be justified if it is not mala fide, arbitrary, or for ulterior considerations, and does not fall foul of constitutional provisions.
The composition of selection committees for academic positions must meet statutory requirements; violations permit candidates to challenge the process, regardless of their participation.
Doctrine “no man can be a Judge in his own cause” can be applied only to cases where person concerned has a personal interest or has himself already done some act or taken a decision in the matter co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.