SIDDHANT K MISHRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner who was an adhoc Lecturer in Sri Aurobiodo College (Evening),has impugned the selection of Lecturer of Applied Psychology, a sutject which he has been teaching as adhoc Lecturer since October, 1993 at the same college. His grievance is that there were three adhot Lecturers, two of whom have been regularised on being selected by the Selection. Committee, which had called 45 persons including the said three adhoc Lecturers for interview. The petitioner was not selected and in preference to him, one Dr. Mahesh K.Darolia was selected. The main ground of attack Is that the officiating Principal, respondent No.2 was not well disposed towards the petitioner because the petitiener's real brother one Mr. R.K.Mishra,who impleaded as respondent No.6, is the President of the respondent College Staff Association and the said Association had passed' a resolution, under the leadership of said briother of the petitioner, condemming the existing of ficiating Principal. Nothing has been pointed out wherefrom one could conclude that there existed any kind of animosity between the petitioner and the officiating Principal. The contention gets further diluted in the light of the fact that although the person who piloted the staff Association resolution, and who should have been a target of the officiating Principal, has suffered no prejudice so far. Furthermore, the Selection Committee could not be said to be dominated by the officiating Principal because the persons who evaluated the candidates included two experts, namely Ms. Dr. Paramjit Kaur Dhillon, Professor in the Department of Psychology and an expert on the panel of the University in the subject of Psychology and Mr. D.M. Saxena, Professor in the Department of Zoology of University of Delhi, who is nominee/representative of the University on the Governing Body of the college. I have been informed that in the event of any difference of the opinion among the members of Selection Committee, the opinion of the specialist in the subject prevails. In the present case, the candidates were selected by a unanimous verdict of the Selection Committee. The law on the subject of powers of the Court to interfere with selection is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of its judgements, which are referred to hereafter.

(2.) I had also, in the case of P.K. Sharma Vs. Moti Lal Nehru College (Eve.) & Ors. in C.W.P. No.789 of 1995 on April 25, 1996 held that if a person participates in the selection process with full knowledge of the constitution of the Selection Committee and without any protest or demur against the constitution of the Selection Committee, could not fault such selection after he failed to be selected. The petitioner has referred to a number of authorities with a view to butteress his argument that this Court had power to interfere with the selection. He has relied upon the case of Neelima Misra. Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors., reported as AIR 1990 SC 1402 (1412) wherein in para-32, the Hon'ble Supreme Court obsereved as under:-

(3.) No contravention of any statutory or binding rules or ordinance has been brought to my notice in this case. He has referred to the decision in Ishwar Chandra Vs. Satyanarain Sinha & Ors., reported as AIR 1972 SC 1812. In this case, even though one of the three members of the Selection Committee was unable to attend the meeting, the Supreme Court has upheld the selection.