KESHAV RAM PAL READER AND HEAD OF SANSKRIT DEPARTMENT AND OFFG PRINCIPAL LAJPAT RAI POST GRADUATE COLLEGE SAHIBABAD DISTT GHAZIABAD U P Vs. U P HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES COM MISSION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Keshav Ram Pal, a Ph.D. and a D.Litt. in Sanskrit, who has been teaching degree and postgraduate classes for the last 26 years, who has worked as Reader and Head of the Department of Sanskrit from August 1971 onwards and who has further acted as Principal of the Lajpat Rai Post-Graduate College, Sahibabad for two years in 1972-73 and again from July 3, 1984, applied to the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for the post of Principal, in response to an advertisement inviting applications for eight such posts. He was one of the 60 candidates, who were interviewed by the Commission but he was not selected. He has filed the present application under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ questioning the selection made by the Commission on two grounds. The first ground was that the Commission was biased as he belonged to an inferior caste, namely, the Gadariya (Shepherd) caste whereas the gentlemen, who constituted the interviewing Board, belonged to the higher castes of Hindu Society. He wanted us to draw the inference of bias from the circumstances, which he alleged in the petition that when he appeared before the Board and when in answer to a query, he told the Board that he belonged to the Gadariya caste, the Board appeared to lose all interest in him, though, in the beginning, they appeared to be quite impressed with him. According to the petitioners, thereafter the interview was a mere make-believe. It was later that he came to know that the gentlemen, who constituted the Board, belonged to the higher castes and that all the eight persons selected by them also belonged to the higher castes. We are afraid we are unable to draw the inference which the petitioner wants us to draw from the circumstances. There were six members of the interviewing Board and it is too much to think that the Board collectively decided not to select the petitioner for the sole reason that he belonged to an inferior caste and they belonged to higher castes. There is nothing whatever to justify the allegation. The Chairman of the Commission has filed an affidavit and he has denied that any enquiry was made of the petitioner regarding his surname or caste.

(2.) The second ground on which the petitioner challenged the selection was that it was arbitrary. According to him, he possessed the highest academic qualifications and the longest experience and, therefore. he should have been preferred to all the others who were selected. He contended that though each of the members of the interviewing Board was allocated 50 marks, there was no allocation of the marks for the various heads under which the merit of the candidates was judged. The argument was that although the basis of selection was said to be the candidates' 'academic attainments, teaching experience, administrative experience and suitability for the post of Principal', marks were not separately allocated under each of these heads. This procedure, according to the petitioner, was arbitrary and resulted in arbitrary selection. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied on the following observations of Bhagwati, J. in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487:

(3.) We do not think that the Interviewing Board, in the present case, was under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under various sub-heads. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.