GOPAL DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SELECTION /appointment of private respondents as Lecturer 10+2 Urdu in School Education Department made vide impugned Order No. PSC/DR/Lect+2/Urdu/98 Dated 6.2.2003 has been questioned in the present petition.In addition to this, a further direction is sought by the petitioner seeking his own appointment as 10+2 Lecturer on the basis of his name being in the waiting list at Sr.No. 1.

(2.) THE process for selection was initiated vide advertisement Notice No. 9 -PSC of 2001 dated 18.5.2001, whereby applications for the post of Lecturer (10+2) Urdu in School Education Department were invited from various categories including Scheduled Caste Category. Petitioner belongs to Sceduled caste Category.There were three vacancies reserved for the category in the advertisement notice.All the candidates were subjected to screening test conducted on 2.12.2001. Petitioner is said to have qualified for the same.He was called to participate in the interview held from 7th to 21st December 2002 at Jammu.He appeared for interview. The list of selectees was declared vide impugned order, whereby 20 candidates have been selected in General Category, three in Scheduled Caste category, to which the petitioner belongs, and also in other categories. A waiting list of candidates belonging to different categories was also notified and petitioner figures at Sr.No. 1. The claim of the petitioner is that he is M.A. in Urdu with B.Ed., whereas private respondents are lesser in merit than the petitioner. The second ground of challenge is that the selection of private respondents is in violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in "Dr.Inder Prakash Vs State & Others." In addition to this, what is argued is that the selection has been made only on the basis of interview which is impermissible and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that the Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the decision of the Selection body. The Court can only examine the manner in which the selection has been made. Merely because petitioner has better academic merit does not ipso facto nullify the selection.The law laid down in Inder Prakash case by the Full Bench has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petitioner participated in the process of selection and after having failed to make the mark cannot challenge the selection on the ground that the selection is bad, unless it is established that the selection is violative of either constitutional mandate or other statutory provisions or is the result of malafide etc. There is no allegation of malafide against any member of the selection body. The Court cannot substitute its own view for the selection body. There is no merit in this contention.