SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and Ashok Bhan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 7174 of 2001. D/d. 12.10.2001.

Joginder Singh and others - Appellants

Versus

Roshan Lal and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Appointment of Learner bookbinder (Class IV) - Practical cum interview conducted - 323 candidates appear for test on two days - Sellection Committee properly constituted Post is advestised and selection process known to law which is fair to all followed - Merely because large number of candidates appear in two days, cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that farce and fair chance was not given.

[Para 5]

ORDER

B.N. Kirpal, J. - Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which by the impugned judgment had quashed the selection of the learner bookbinder which had been conducted by a duly appointed Selection Committee.

3. The respondents had applied along with a large number of candidates for appointment to the post of bookbinder. The process of selection was that of practical-cum-interview test. On the basis of the advertisement, 528 applications, amongst them of the respondents and the appellants, were received; 323 candidates appeared for the test on two days, namely, 12-8-1998 and 13-8-1998. On the basis of the said test, a select list was prepared by the Departmental Selection Committee, whereupon the appellants were appointed.

4. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court observed:

"in its opinion, fair amount of time should be given to each one of the candidates so that he may be able to show his worth, ability as per his intellect, to the members of the Selection Committee".

The High Court further observed:

"that it had no hesitation to hold that the process of selection was a farce and the fair chance was never given to the candidates to show their worth".

5. On the facts on record we see no justification for the High Court to have come to this conclusion. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to act as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Departmental Selection Committee. If the Committee has been properly constituted, as in this case, and the post is advertised and a selection process known to law which is fair to all, is followed, then the High Court could have no jurisdiction to go into a question whether the Departmental Selection Committee conducted the test properly or not when there is no allegation of mala fides or bias against any member of the Committee. Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Normally, experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Merely because only two days were spent in conducting the interviews for the selection of Class IV posts cannot lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper.

6. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. As a result thereof, the writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.