LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M)

Date of decision: 01.02.2010

Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering

and Technology, through its Director.

............Appellants

Versus

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh

.........Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

-.-

Present:

Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate

for the respondent.

ALOK SINGH, J.

1.

Appellants are assailing judgment dated 13.2.2009

passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge

directed the respondents (herein appellants) to reconsider the

claim of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of merit in

the process of selection and consequently, if, there is no legal

impediment or other valid deficiency, the respondents will pass

the appropriate orders for the appointment of petitioner within a

period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is

furnished upon respondent No.2 (appellant). In the event,

LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M)

-2-

respondents choose to appoint the petitioner for the post in

question, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of

appointment from the date other Professors in other disciplines

were appointed. However, he will not be entitled to the

monetary benefit except the seniority and fixation of notional

pay by giving benefit of increments and pay revision, if any.

2.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that no

mandamus can be issued to give appointment to the petitioner.

According to learned Counsel for the appellants, even if a

candidate found to be suitable and is selected, he has no legal

right to seek mandamus to appoint him. He further argued that

none of the candidate appeared for the post of Professors in

Mechanical Engineering was given appointment.

4.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner

argued that since post are still vacant and petitioner secured

49.5 marks out of 100 and another candidate, Dr. Pradeep

Gupta secured 47.7 marks, in view of this, petitioner should

have been declared selected and ought to have been given

appointment. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf

of the respondent/writ petitioner further submitted in another

disciplines, candidates having secured lessor marks were given

appointment.

5.

Record of the proceedings of the Staff Selection

Committee was produced before us. From the perusal of the

LPA No.791 of 2009(O&M)

-3-

record, we find that only two candidates i.e. writ petitioner and

Dr. Pradeep Gupta appeared before the Staff Selection

Committee for interview. However, members of the Staff

Selection Committee made following endorsement:-

“The candidate at Sr. No.1 and 2 were

not found fit for the post of Professor in

the

Department

of

Mechanical

Engineering by the Selection Committee.

Hence, both the candidates are not

selected.”

6.

Mark-sheet prepared by the Selection Committee

further reveals that writ petitioner secured only 49.5 marks while

Dr. Pradeep Gupta, another candidate, secured 47.7 marks out

of 100. Having perused the record produced before us, we find

no illegality being committed by the Selection Committee in

awarding the marks. It is not the case of the petitioner that

Selection Committee awarded undue high marks to other

candidates despite of the fact that petitioner was more qualified

and experienced. This Court, while exercising the power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not sit as an

Appellate Authority over the decision of the Selection

Committee, which is the expert body. It is a settled principle of

law that ordinarily this Court does not act as an expert body nor

disturb the decision taken by the