Srinagar, April 07: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Friday directed the Public Service Commission (PSC) to consider the candidature of petitioners for the posts of Assistant Professor (Botany) while setting-aside a judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) declaring the petitioners ineligible for the said posts.
Since this Court has already reserved three posts of Assistant Professors (Botany) and the PSC while finalizing the selection has also kept four posts in Open Merit Category reserved, the bench directed the PSC to consider the candidature of petitioners and if they are found to have obtained the merit, which is higher than the last cutoff and otherwise fall in the selection zone, their candidature be recommended to the Government for appointment as Assistant Professor in Botany,” the court said.
A division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta directed the PSC to complete its exercise within four weeks and recommend the names of petitioners for appointment as Assistant Professors, Botany.
“Needless to say that on receipt of recommendation from PSC in favour of petitioners, the Department of Higher Education shall issue formal orders of appointment of the petitioners against the posts already reserved by this Court subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities required for regular appointment in government service,” the bench directed.
The bench further directed that one of the candidates belonging to SLC Category and has reportedly secured merit higher than cutoff in the Open Merit Category, as such, the petitioner would be considered against one of the four posts reserved in General Category.
Allowing the plea, the court held a selection body, like PSC, cannot sit over the opinion of the appointing authority based on the expert advice given in respect of relevance of prescribed qualification.
“We are aware that the opinion of the appointing authority based on the recommendations of subject experts in respect of equivalence and relevance of the qualification prescribed for a post is not always a thumb rule binding on the Courts or is to be accepted as correct in all circumstances,” the bench said.
The court said that there may be cases where even the opinion of the experts is, on the face of it, “absurd” or even actuated by “bias or mala fide” considerations.
In such a situation, the court said, nothing prevents a Constitutional Court from examining such opinion in exercise of its powers of judicial review.
The bench pointed out that the counsel for the PSC or counsel representing the Department of Higher Education could not bring it to the notice of the court that any power or competence conferred upon the PSC to sit over such decision of the appointing authority in respect of prescribed qualification particularly when such opinion of the appointing authority is based upon the recommendations of the experts’ domain.
“We have no doubt in our mind that it is neither for the selection body nor for the Courts to enter into the arena of finding out the equivalence or relevance of the qualification prescribed for the post,” the court said, adding, “We make it clear that the need to seek the expert opinion and the point of view of the appointing authority in respect of qualification may arise only when there is some confusion or ambiguity in the prescribed qualification.”
The court pointed out that had the statutory Recruitment Rules and the advertisement notification notified the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany as M.Sc. Botany, perhaps it was not permissible for the appointing authority or, for this court, to look for any equivalent or relevant qualification.
E
