1989 (12) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of two appointments by the High Court based on various grounds, including delay in filling vacancies, alleged mala fides, comparative merits of the candidates, and the composition of the Selection Committee.

Appointment of Chief Extension Education Officer (CA No. 3507/89):
The High Court set aside the appointment due to alleged delay in filling the vacancy and a perceived deliberate attempt to delay the appointment until 1980. However, the University provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the High Court's reasoning was deemed flawed. The Court also found fault with the High Court's assessment of mala fides, highlighting that the University's actions were not indicative of favoritism towards the appellant.

Appointment of Deputy Director, Central Farm (CA No. 3508/89):
Similar to the previous case, the High Court quashed this appointment based on reasons common to both cases. The High Court's decision was primarily influenced by the comparative merits of the candidates, as assessed by the Court itself. However, the Court noted that it is not within its jurisdiction to review the Selection Committee's decisions on candidate suitability unless there are specific legal grounds for interference.

General Observations:
The High Court's reliance on the comparative merits of the candidates was criticized, as the Court's role is not to reevaluate the Selection Committee's decisions. Additionally, the High Court's concerns regarding the appellant's relationship with his former guides during his studies were deemed irrelevant to the selection process. The judgment also highlighted the lack of substantial evidence to support claims of bias in the Selection Committee's composition.

Constitution of Selection Committee:
An argument regarding the composition of the Selection Committee, specifically the absence of experts from other universities, was raised but not considered as it was not presented before the High Court. The Court emphasized that new arguments cannot be introduced at a later stage without proper opportunity for all parties to address them.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed all the appeals and overturned the High Court's decision to quash the appointments. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.