Court can’t be super-selector in selection process, says Punjab and Haryana HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 28

The court cannot assume the role of a super-selector in a selection process, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. It has added that the manner in which an interview is conducted, and the method adopted by the selection committee to assess the inter-se merit of candidates cannot be gone into by the court by turning into a super-selector.

“This work is best left to the interview committee having experts in their fields,” the Bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Sant Parkash ruled. It also made it clear that a candidate could not challenge the selection process under which he himself was offered admission to another course.

The ruling came on a petition by Suraj Dahiya against Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU) and other respondents. The petitioner was seeking the setting aside of admission granted to Khush Dev in the PhD (physical education) course under Haryana Open General Category (HOGC). Among other things, it was argued that the varsity wrongly granted admission to the candidate under HOGC by completely overlooking the fact that he had applied under the EWS category.

The counsel added that the bare perusal of the manner of awarding marks to the selected candidates in interview showed that they were unduly favoured, evident from clear-cut overwriting in the marks. As such, the entire selection process was a mere eyewash, liable to be set aside.

The Bench asserted that it was quite possible that the interview committee assessing the candidates first felt they were required to be given lesser/more marks, but then changed their mind immediately. There could be endless eventualities/probabilities on the reasons behind overwriting, which could not be adjudicated by the court exercising writ jurisdiction.

The Bench added that mala fides had been alleged against the committee and the selected candidates. But none of the candidates had been impleaded as a party. Further, material particulars of fraud/mala fides alleged by the petitioner were clearly absent. The Bench added: “Neither any reason for favouring candidates by the selection committee has been shown, nor has any prima facie proof been produced before us, which would make us believe that candidates have favoured for extraneous reasons.”

The Bench observed that the petitioner secured fifth rank, while the private respondent secured third in the general category.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.