URMILA BEURA Vs. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under -Article 226 of the Constitution of India.to quash the appointment of opposite party No.4 to the post of Lecturer in Education in the Bhadrak Women's College. Petitioner's case is as follows :

(2.) THE Principal -cum -Secretary of the Bhadrak Women's College invited applications to fill up the aforesaid post from among lady candidates, the last date for receiving applications being 16.8.1993 (vide Annexure -1). The petitioner and opposite party No.4 along with others applied for the post in due lime and faced interview on 19.12.1993 at 11.00 A.M. The Selection Committee placed opposite party No.4 in the first position and the petitioner in the second position. The selection and appointment of opposite party No.4 are challenged on two grounds, firstly, that she did not have the requisite qualification of Master's Degree in Education as on the last day of application and secondly, the appointment was because of extraneous consideration, such as, the political pressure and influence.

(3.) IN the writ petition, mala fide has been attributed against opposite party No.2. the Principal, the Selection Committee (vide para -7) and in Annexurcs -5 and 6, paper cuttings, the allegation is directed against the President of the Governing Body. No material has been placed before the Court to prove mala fide against any one of them. That apart, the question of mala fide would arise if the Selection Committee or the person in authority appointed a person who was either unqualifided, undesirable or was inferior in merit. It may be emphasised that opposite party No.4 in her counter in para -6 gave a comparative chart indicating the career of herself and (hat of' the petitioner. It is apparent that both were found possessing requisite academic qualifications. But a bare perusal would indicate that in Intermediate of Articles Examination opposite party No.4 was placed in Ist Division and the petitioner was placed in 3rd Division. In the Bachelor of Articles Examination, while opposite party No.4 got IInd Class Hons.with distinction, the petitioner got a mere find class Hons. In the Master's Degree in Education, though both are placed in the Ist Division, opposite party No.4 stood at Sl.No.8 in the University. This position is not denied. On going through the comparative chart of academic career of the petitioner and opposite party No.4, it can be said that opposite party No.4 had comparatively a better career than the petitioner. Therefore, here is a case where the Selection Committee has not overlooked the merit of the petitioner and if this comparative career has weighed in the mind of the Selection Committee, this Court should not interfere with the process of selection. This principle is well settled. On this point, we may appropriately refer to the decision in the case of Mysore University v. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491. In that case challenge to the appointment was not on the ground of any statutory violation but only on the ground of absence of requisite qualification. The Constitutional Bench unanimously held that the Courts should normally be slow to interfere with the opinion of expressed by the experts particularly when there is no element of mala fides against the experts who constituted the body. It further held that in the matter of selection of candidates, the Selection Committee (in that ease, the Board) does not perform the function of an executive authority so as to issue an executive order or that their act is a quasi -judicial one. Therefore, so far as selection/appointment made by the academic bodies is concerned, the High Courts should not apply the tests which arc legitimate to be applied in the case of writ of certiorari. I have already held that the petitioner has failed to prove mala fide. The case also does not bring out any violation of statutory rules. Therefore, quashing of appointment of opposite party No.4 would not be proper