NAGESWARA RAO Vs. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this Writ Appeal relate to a post of a Hindi Lecturer in a Degree College run by the South Central Railway, Secunderabad. There was an advertisement by Railways notice No. 1/76 on May 24, 1976. The notice was published on April 7, 1977. On April 14, 1977 a corrigendum was published with respect to eligibility of candidates. Eleven candidates applied for the post of Hindi Lecturer. Eight among them obtained first Class in M.A. Hindi. They were interviewed on June 14 and 18, 1977. A panel of four candidates was published. In that Suraj Agarwal obtained 63 marks, Ramesh Kumar Yadav 62, D. Sakunthala 61 and Y. Nageswara Rao 60. The candidate with 63 marks was appointed. The last among the panel candidates (with marks 60) questioned the selection in this Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on March 17, 1979. Hence appeal by the writ petitioner.

(2.) The contention raised with respect to knowledge in Telugu was to hold the appointed candidate is not even eligible for appointment. The single Judge held sufficiency of knowledge in Telugu was a pre-requisite qualification. But the rules, it was held, are not statutory. The selected candidate was found to possess a smattering knowledge of Telugu. Therefore, it was found no case was made out for interference by this Court on that ground.

(3.) The principal ground of attack was made against Raj Kishore Pandey, expert Member in the Selection Committee. The allegation is he was biased against candidates whose mother tongue was Telugu. On this ground selection was assailed in the writ Petition. We may at the outset state that there is no acceptable evidence placed before us to hold Dr. Raj Kishore Pandey was, in any way, prejudiced against any category of candidates especially when the Committee included Chief Personnel Officer of Railways, Senior Deputy Central Manager of Railways, the Principal of Arts College, and Head Collegiate Cell, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The question that was argued on behalf of the appellant was that selected candidate was a student of Dr. Pandey, therefore he was biased in his favour and for that reason the selection should be quashed. Pending appeal, an additional affidavit is filed by Dr. Pandey in that he stated four of the candidate who are found in the panel of select list were his students. He was not biased in favour of any of them. He, along with other Committee members, considered the relative merits of each candidate, awarded marks and selected the four with the ranking as per the marks obtained by them.