CHAITRA B. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition under Articles 226 of the constitution of India challenges the selection list dated 18.6.2013 (Annexure -L). The 2nd respondent had invited applications from eligible candidates for various posts in their institution. In the present petition, we are concerned only with the post of Assistant Professor in Physiology to which petitioner and respondents -3 and 4 had applied. The selection committee was duly constituted by the 2nd respondent as per their bye -laws which interviewed all the three candidates. Constitution of selection committee is not under challenge. The petitioner has not made any allegations against members of the selection committee or any other person, directly or indirectly concerned with the selection process. In other words, the petitioner has not alleged any malafides for challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Assistant Professors. The total marks secured by the petitioner were 6 whereas the marks secured by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were 7 and 6.5, respectively. It is well settled that it is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not is to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has expertise on the subject. The Court has no such experties. In the present case, respondent No. 2 had constituted a committee in due compliance of the relevant bye -laws. It is not in dispute that the committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all relevant material before it. Merely because the petitioner published one extra paper at international level, could not be a ground to claim that she was more suitable for the post than respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It would be relevant to notice the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 of the judgment in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, : (2010) 8 SCC 372, which reads thus: