The Selection Committee’s service matter could not be blamed for any wrongdoing-service matter : SC
October 08, 2021
On 2 September 2008, the first respondent issued a notification inviting applications for thirty-five vacancies in the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’. Both the appellant and third respondent applied for the post in category 1(OBC) in which one vacancy was advertised. On 22 August 2008, the Selection Committee assembled to discuss the modalities of selection. It was decided that the percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying exam in the Laboratory Technician’s Course would be converted to 85%. Of the 15% marks set out for the interview, 10% of the marks were to be set apart for the length of work experience and/or additional training in teaching hospitals of a medical college, with special preference to those who had worked in teaching hospitals of government/autonomous medical colleges. The remaining 5% marks were to be assigned to the personality of the candidate based on the viva-voce. Appellant was appointed to the post of Junior Lab Technician in category 1 on 21 April 2009. On the cumulation of the marks received in the three categories namely, qualifying marks, experience and interview, the appellant secured 70.86 marks while the third respondent secured 66.84 marks. The petition was filed by the third respondent, who sought a direction for quashing the appointment, but same was dismissed by the single judge , filed revision to Division Brench . The Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the selection of the appellant and directed the first respondent to consider the case of the third respondent for appointment to the post of Junior Lab Technician within two months. Aggrieved by the Judgement appellant approached the Apex Court. Apex court held that the third respondent did not challenge the entire selection list just sought a direction for his appointment in place of the appellant on basis that he had secured higher marks as compared to the appellant .The selection list for the post of ‘Junior Lab Technician’ was challenged before the High Court in another proceeding – Nagaraj – but the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. On a comparison of the marks allotted to both the candidates with reference to the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is there an obvious or glaring error or perversity. Appeal Allowed.
Sri Srinivas K Gouda
VERSUS
Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.
