Summary
Sixty-four drug inspectors were selected in Jammu and Kashmir in September 2009 on 80 marks for qualifications and 20 for interview and had served since November 2009. On petitions by unsuccessful candidates, the High Court quashed the entire selection because individual award rolls were not on record, the final award roll was unsigned and extra weightage for post-graduate degrees was given without verification. The Supreme Court set the judgments aside: courts cannot sit in appeal over a selection committee's assessment; candidates who participated without protest cannot challenge the recast criteria absent mala fides; no rule required signed individual award rolls and the procedure followed and approved by the full Board disclosed no arbitrariness; and quashing an entire selection over such irregularity, more than a decade into the appointees' service, was unjustified.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire selection and appointment of drug inspectors on the ground that individual award rolls were unavailable, the final award roll unsigned and extra weightage for higher qualifications given without verification.
- Whether unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection without protest could challenge the recasting of the selection criteria and the award of interview marks.
- Whether a doctor with an MD and PhD in pharmacology was competent to serve as the expert on the selection committee.
Provisions considered
- Rules 9, 9A and 10, Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992The Chairman may nominate a committee of one or more Board members to hold interviews and may, if he feels necessary, associate an expert in the discipline; the committee's selection is approved by the Board; and where no rules prescribe tests the Board may adopt such procedure as it considers necessary. The use of the word may makes association of a pharmacy expert discretionary, and no rule requires signed individual award rolls. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.5, 14.5, 14.6, 15.3)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review of a selection process is confined to illegality, patent material irregularity in the constitution or procedure of the committee, or proved mala fides; the writ court cannot act as an appellate authority over the marks awarded or undertake a roving factual inquiry beyond the pleadings. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 16.2)
Held
- It is not within the domain of courts exercising judicial review to enter into the merits of a selection, which is the prerogative of an expert selection committee, save where malfeasance or violation of statutory rules is proved; courts cannot examine whether interview marks were excessive or step into the shoes of the committee, so the grievances about post-graduates receiving high viva marks could not be entertained. (¶¶ 12, 12.1)
- Candidates who took part in the selection without demur after the criteria were recast on 12 June 2009 waived their right to challenge the criteria and cannot approbate and reprobate merely because the result was unpalatable; the only exception is mala fides on the part of the selection board, of which there was none. The recasting, which increased weightage for pharmacy and higher qualifications, was intended to preserve standards and was not arbitrary. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.2, 16.3)
- Cancellation of an entire selection is disproportionate unless a systemic flaw taints its integrity; here each committee member sealed individual awards which were consolidated, fed into the computer by the Chairman, checked by another member and approved by all seven members of the Board after perusing the record. No statute or rule required individual rolls to be signed and verified, so the absence of such rolls six years later could not vitiate the selection, particularly when sixty-four appointees had served for over a decade. (¶¶ 14, 14.1, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6)
- Pharmacology, the science of drugs and their effects, is more advanced than pharmacy, the preparation and dispensing of drugs; a doctor with an MD and PhD in pharmacology was not underqualified and was in fact more appropriate to interview candidates for drug inspector, and Rules 9(iii) and 9A leave association of a discipline expert to the Chairman's discretion. Allocation of 20 of 100 marks to interview is not excessive. (¶¶ 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 16, 16.1, 16.2)
Result
Appeals allowed; judgments of the Single Judge dated 18.12.2015 and the Division Bench dated 29.10.2021 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, and the Single Judge's judgment at Jammu dated 06.07.2017, set aside with all consequential directions; the stay permitting the candidates selected on 08.09.2009 and appointed on 12.11.2009 to continue in service made absolute; pending applications disposed of; no costs.