Shivangi Prakash-
Published On: September 29, 2021 at 16:21 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared that the Court cannot act as a Super-Selector in a Selection process.
It went on to say that the Court cannot dig into the manner in which an Interview is conducted or the process used by the Selection Committee to Judge the inter-se merit of candidates by acting as 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.
Suraj Dahiya, the Petitioner was seeking to have Khush Dev’s admission to the PhD (physical education) Programme under the Haryana Open General Category (HOGC) revoked.
Suraj Dahiya had filed a Petition against Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU) and other defendants, saying that the HOGC completely ignored the fact that the candidate had applied under the EWS category.
The Counsel went on to say that a brief scan of the method in which the selected candidates were given marks in the interview revealed that they were unduly favoured, as evidenced by clear-cut overwriting of the marks.
As a result, the entire selection process was a sham, likely to be forgotten.
The Bench stated that it was probable that the interview committee evaluating the candidates initially believed they should be given lower/higher marks, but subsequently altered their minds.
There could be a variety of scenarios/probabilities about the reasons for overwriting, none of which could be decided by a Court with Writ Jurisdiction.
Mala fides had been charged against the committee and the nominated candidates, but none of the candidates had been named as a party, according to the Bench. Furthermore, the petitioner’s allegations of fraud/mala fides lacked essential particulars.
The Bench further 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 Petitioner came in fifth place in the general category, whereas the private respondent came in third place.
Also Read: Supreme Court grants final extension to TNSEC for completion of Election Process
