In a recent legal case, the court’s analysis focused on the crucial aspect of judicial review of Selection Committee decisions. The case delved into the intricacies of eligibility criteria and experience requirements, emphasizing the significance of thorough legal scrutiny. This blog delves into the court’s nuanced examination and the impact it had on the parties involved.
Facts
- Original respondent no.5 was appointed despite not meeting the qualification and eligibility criteria.
- The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision.
- The Single Judge found the appointment of respondent no.5 to be illegal due to lack of requisite qualification.
- The Single Judge also directed for deletion of marks of the 5th respondent and modification of the rank list for new appointments.
- The Selection Committee confirmed the eligibility of respondent no.6 based on the experience certificate submitted.
- The Single Judge partially allowed the writ petition and annulled the appointment of respondent no.5.
- Petitioner applied for the post of Technical Assistant Grade – II
- Placed lower in the rank list due to less marks on experience
- Ignored earlier services rendered as daily wagers
- Approached High Court via Writ Petition No.27538 of 2012
- All other employees in the rank list made party to the writ petition
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Arguments
- The writ petitioner argued that the Selection Committee’s criteria were followed, but the decision was still arbitrary.
- The petitioner pointed out that the 6th respondent did not meet the qualifications or experience required for the position.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Analysis
- Appellant raised a plea regarding being denied marks on experience due to earlier service as a daily wager
- Original respondent no.6 lacked eligibility criteria as they did not have experience in a Computer Science Lab
- Learned Single Judge refused to consider the above points on their merits
- The Selection Committee awarded marks for experience based on the Experience Certificate produced by respondent no.6.
- The High Court failed to consider the plea challenging the decision of the Selection Committee on merits.
- Challenging the decision of the Selection Committee warrants a review by the High Court on merits.
- The High Court cannot refrain from interfering with the decision of the Selection Committee solely based on it being taken under judicial review.
- The matter needs to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for further consideration.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Driver Appointment Dispute
Decision
- The learned Single Judge has been directed to complete the exercise within six months of the issuance of the order.
- The present appeal is partly allowed within the specified extent.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge have been quashed and set aside.
- The present appeal succeeds in part.
- The Committee’s decision in awarding marks based on experience while ignoring the services rendered by the appellant as a daily wager is to be reviewed by the learned Single Judge.
- The eligibility criteria of respondent no.6 in terms of ‘I Class Diploma in Computer Science and 3 years’ experience in respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities’ is to be reevaluated.
- The parties are permitted to submit additional documents within four weeks from the date of the first hearing.
- The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for a fresh consideration of the writ petition regarding the Selection process.
Case Title: BIJU K.K. Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI (2022 INSC 674)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004144-004144 / 2022
