Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3711 (HP)

Ajay Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-09-16

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Pursuant to a selection process undertaken by respondents No.3, 4 & 6-the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPSSC) in view of requisition issued to it by respondent No.2- Director Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as Chief Inspector (Boilers), Class-I (Gazetted). Petitioner, a participant in the same selection process, feels aggrieved, as according to him respondent No.5 did not satisfy essential qualifications No.(ii) prescribed in the advertisement or in other words, respondent No.5 did not have requisite 10 years experience. 2. The case. 2(i) Respondents-HPPSC issued an advertisement on 07.12.2022 inviting online recruitment applications from desirous eligible candidates for recruitment to one post (UR category) of Chief Inspector (Boilers), Class-I (Gazetted) (on contract basis). Closing date for application was 03.01.2023. Advertisement prescribed following essential qualification(s) (E.Q.): - Essential Qualification(s) 2(ii) Petitioner, respondent No.5 and 12 others applied for the post. Respondents-HPPSC scrutinized the documents of these 14 provisionally admitted candidates. Their candidature was not found to be in order for varying reasons including for want of satisfying E.Q. No.II. List of provisionally rejected candidates was circulated/uploaded on the official website of the Commission vide Annexure P-3 inter-alia inviting representation from the concerned candidates against rejection of their candidature along with requisite supporting documents by 13.02.2023. This course was adopted in view of Clause 5(2) of the advertisement (page-32 of the paper book). 2(iii) In response to above, six candidates including petitioner and respondent No.5 submitted their respective representations. To consider these representations, a committee was constituted by the Commission, which also included Additional Director of Industries as its Expert Member. The Committee deliberated and scrutinized the documents of these candidates. The Committee held the petitioner and respondent No.5 as eligible to be considered for the post. Candidature of remaining four candidates was rejected for want of satisfying requisite criteria. 2(iv) Petitioner  and  respondent  No.5  appeared  in  the Personality test for the post of Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 11.08.2023. Respondent No.5 emerged successful. His name was recommended by the Commission for appointment to the post in question. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.5 as Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 26.08.2023. 3. 2(iv) Petitioner  and  respondent  No.5  appeared  in  the Personality test for the post of Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 11.08.2023. Respondent No.5 emerged successful. His name was recommended by the Commission for appointment to the post in question. Respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.5 as Chief Inspector (Boilers) on 26.08.2023. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent No.5 did not have 10 years’ experience in the Managerial capacity in the field of design/construction/erection/operation/testing/repair/maintenance or inspection of Boilers or in the implementation of the Boilers Act, 1923 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This was essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The certificates of experience of respondent No.5 appended with his application form fall short of satisfying the requisite E.Q.II. Reference was made to the experience certificates of respondent No.5 to point out the short comings, which as per learned counsel make him ineligible for the post for want of requisite experience in terms of the advertisement. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.5 refuted the submissions made for the petitioner and justified selection and appointment of respondent No.5. It has also been strongly projected that respondent No.5 was in possession of the requisite essential qualifications. Certificates of experience furnished by respondent No.5 were duly scrutinized and examined by the Committee including the Expert Member. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission elaborated and justified the selection process. According to learned counsel, the duly constituted committee justly scrutinized the certificates of participating candidates and held the petitioner and respondent No.5 eligible for the post. Pursuant to the directions issued in this case on 04.09.2025, learned counsel also produced the record. Referring in detail to the certificates produced by respondent No.5, it was strongly urged that he was justly held to be in possession of requisite experience by the duly constituted committee. 4. I have heard learned counsel on both sides, considered the case file and have also perused the relevant record. 4(i) Certificates furnished along with the application and produced by respondent No.5 were considered and scrutinized by the duly constituted Committee including Additional Director, Department of Industries, who was the Expert Member in the Committee. The Committee determined respondent No.5’s candidature to be satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. No allegation of mala fide has been levelled either against constitution of the Committee or against any of its members. The Committee determined respondent No.5’s candidature to be satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. No allegation of mala fide has been levelled either against constitution of the Committee or against any of its members. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to take note of Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 which reiterated the settled legal position that the Courts have to show due deference and consideration to the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. It would normally, be wise, safe for the courts to leave the decisions in academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. Portion relevant to the context from the decision is extracted hereinafter: - “13. The Committee appointed by the University thoroughly scrutinized the qualification, experience and published works of both the candidates and made its unanimous recommendations in favour of their appointments. The University also clearly stated that the appointments of the appellants were made in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, for the selections to the post of Readers, an Expert Committee was constituted and thereafter, its recommendations were accepted by the University and issued orders accordingly. No one had any grievance so far as the constitution of Experts Committee was concerned and no mala fides have been levelled against any member of the expert committee. 14-20…………….. 21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture. 22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore, in the case of The University of Mysore and Anr. 22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore, in the case of The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491 in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. 23………. 24. In Dr. M.C. Gupta & Others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others, (1979) 2 SCC 339 somewhat similar controversy arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as well as respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post. Appellant no.1 had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6 months as a Lecturer in Cardiology in the department of medicine and about 3 years and 2 months as Reader in Medicine in S. N. Medical College, Agra. Since there was no separate Department of Cardiology in that College, Cardiology formed part of general medicine and as such he was required to teach general medicine to undergraduate students and to some post-graduate students in addition to Cardiology. Similarly, appellant no.2 had one year's experience as post- doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo, one year's teaching experience as Lecturer while posted as a Pool Officer and 15 months' teaching experience as post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur and about 4 years' and 6 months' teaching experience as Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo. The cardiology is a part of medicine and the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in Cardiology, was teaching experience in a subject which substantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same. The cardiology is a part of medicine and the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in Cardiology, was teaching experience in a subject which substantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same. The Commission was amply justified in reaching to the conclusion that he had the requisite teaching experience. The High Court was, therefore, in error in quashing his selection of the appellant in this case. 25-37…………….. 38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” Jagat Bandhu Chakraborti Vs. G.C. Roy & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 739 was a case where selection and appointment of the appellant had been set aside by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience in the area of analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal holding that it was basically for the experts to determine whether the requisite experience was possessed by the appellant or not. Relevant para from the judgment reads as under: - “5. The other ground which has been urged by Respondents 1 and 2 relates to the experience of the appellant in the area of analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. The appellant has stated that throughout his entire career he has been involved in the research and standardisation work relating to food and has numerous publications to his credit which are listed at Annexure 8' in his affidavit. The appellant was directly involved in the analysis of pesticides residual in food products and has also dealt with other aspects of food analysis. The appellant was directly involved in the analysis of pesticides residual in food products and has also dealt with other aspects of food analysis. Looking to the fact that from 1974 onwards the appellant had worked in the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta, it was for the Expert Committee to evaluate the relevant experience of the appellant in order to ascertain whether from 1974 to 1987 he had at least 5 years' experience in the analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. We fail to see on what basis the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the appellant had not dealt with the analysis of organic material or that the appellant was only concerned with pesticides. The appellant has throughout worked in the Central Food Laboratory and his direct interest has been in analysing in food particles any pesticides residue. It was basically for the experts to determine whether the requisite experience was possessed by the appellant or not. The finding, therefore, of the Tribunal that the appellant did not possess such experience does not appear to be sustainable. In fact from the list of research publications of the appellant it can be seen that these involve analysis of organic matter.” It would also be appropriate to refer to Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., (2023) 17 SCC 147 . In the said case, some candidates, who remained unsuccessful in the selection process, had prayed to quash appointment of selected candidates as Drug Inspectors. Outlining its several authoritative previous pronouncements on the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Courts recognize that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice, if the Courts were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form part of a selection board. It is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. With respect to the contention of the writ petitioners (therein), that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the advertisement was recast without any justifiable reason, it was inter-alia held as under: - “31. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law. 32. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words: "12...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc…..” 33. In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc…..” 33. In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 , this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with: "9   It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation   ” 34. This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119 in the following words: “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion... x x x 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. x x x 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions…..” decisions…..” 35. Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117 was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under: “5. …the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20 per cent were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet-will of the members of the Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion  ” 36. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion  ” 36. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. 37. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water. 4(ii) As per the respondents’ pleadings and the record produced by respondents-HPPSC, respondent No.5 had produced following certificates with regard to his experience:- - Certificate at serial No.1 is available at pages-44 & 45 of the paper book. Page 44 dated 22.10.2008 certifies that the petitioner worked in the Reliance Industries Limited w.e.f. 16.02.2005 as Boiler Operation Engineer (Designation-Manager) & looked after the operation and maintenance of the Boilers mentioned therein (Page-44). Page 44 dated 22.10.2008 certifies that the petitioner worked in the Reliance Industries Limited w.e.f. 16.02.2005 as Boiler Operation Engineer (Designation-Manager) & looked after the operation and maintenance of the Boilers mentioned therein (Page-44). Page-45 of the paper book bearing issue date 03.04.2009 further certifies that respondent No.5 had joined the organization on 16.02.2005 and left it on 03.04.2009 as Manager Mechanical. - Certificate at serial No.2 has been issued by the ONGC Petro Additions Limited. This certificate is not part of the paper book, though application furnished by respondent No.5 for the post in question as appended by respondents No.5 along with his reply at Annexure R-2 reflects that the said certificate of experience was issued to respondent No.5 on 07.06.2022 and was part of his application. I have seen the said certificate in the record. Copy of the same has been made available by learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. As per certificate dated 07.06.2022 issued by ONGC, respondent No.5 had joined the organization as Senior Manager on 24.05.2019 in Maintenance/Engineering Services and resigned on 05.05.2022. Learned counsel for the respondent-HPPSC, submitted that at the time of personality test, respondent No.5 had furnished the experience certificate from ONGC in different format, though the gist of the certificate and the experience mentioned therein remained the same. I have seen the said new certificate dated 28.07.2023, which respondent No.5 is stated to have furnished at the time of personality test. The said certificate records that during respondent No.5’s tenure at ONGC, he was looking after Corrosion and Inspection of different Boilers in Captive Power Plant and Duel Feed Cracker Unit. - Certificate at Serial No.3 has been issued by the Reliance Industries and is available at page-49 of the paper book. Petitioner’s designation was reflected therein as Senior Manager with job role of Sr. Engineer Reliability Static with date of joining as 18.11.2013 & date of leaving as 20.05.2019. - Certificate at serial No.4 issued by the Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited is available at pages-46 & 47 of the paper book. The said certificate issued on 20.08.2012 (page-46) certifies that respondent No.5 had served as Manager in the different fields mentioned therein related to Boilers w.e.f. 06.04.2009 to 20.09.2012. The total period of experience of respondent No.5 in terms of above four certificates is 16 years, 0 month and 14 days. The said certificate issued on 20.08.2012 (page-46) certifies that respondent No.5 had served as Manager in the different fields mentioned therein related to Boilers w.e.f. 06.04.2009 to 20.09.2012. The total period of experience of respondent No.5 in terms of above four certificates is 16 years, 0 month and 14 days. Respondent No.5, therefore, had the requisite experience for the post in question. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner endeavored to dissect respondent No.5’s experience certificates to demonstrate that these do not satisfy the essential qualification E.Q.II laid down in the advertisement. Reference was also made to following Section 2(ccd) of the Boilers Act, 1923 to contend that respondent No.5 could not be an inspecting authority as he did not satisfy the criteria laid therein: - “Inspecting Authority” means an institution recognized in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations for the inspection and certification of boilers and boiler components during manufacture. All Chief Inspectors of Boilers shall be ipso facto Inspecting Authorities” Whereas, it was contended for respondent No.5 that respondent No.5 has also been issued a certificate of proficiency as a Boiler Operation Engineer under the Boiler Operation Engineers Rules, 2011 by the Government of Maharashtra, Directorate of Steam Boilers on 28.09.2013, which was renewed on 28.02.2019 and is valid up-to 27.02.2025. Be that as it may. This aspect is not the subject matter of litigation. The position remains that once the duly constituted committee including expert member had satisfied itself about the eligibility of respondent No.5 under the advertisement including the verification that he was in possession of prescribed experience, in the given facts and circumstances, it is not for this Court to substitute its own view with that of the experts. Even otherwise reference to the certificates of respondent No.5 as made above reflects that he did possess the requisite experience. 5. Accordingly, no interference with selection and appointment of respondent No.5 is warranted. Present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.