Courts Can't Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee. 

A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion where the Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee, who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability for a given post, have carried out the exercise in due compliance with the relevant statutes.

The petitioner herein had approached the court as the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissed his application challenging selection of Respondent no. 4 to the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities).

The counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was more qualified and experienced than the Respondent in the line of rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities and the allied works. He also submitted that the Respondent neither has the required educational qualification nor has the requisite experience as stipulated in the advertisement, thus, he should be appointment as Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) in place of Respondent.

The court stated that the case of the petitioner, so far as the experience is concerned, coupled with the fact that he is unable to show the extent of his experience as a senior level functionary in a registered State or national or international level voluntary organization, was not sustainable. The court held that–

"It is clear from the above advertisement that the person applying for the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) has to have special knowledge or experience in respect of the matters relating to the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and should not have attained the age of 60 years on the 1st January of the year in which the last date of receipt of application is specified. So far as the education qualifications are concerned, the essential condition is that an incumbent must be a graduate from a recognized university and so far as the experience is concerned, the incumbent must have at least 20 years' experience in Group 'A' level or equivalent post in Central or State Government, Public Sector Undertaking or Semi Government or Autonomous bodies dealing with the disability relating matters or social sector or works in the capacity of a senior level functionary in a registered State or National or International level, voluntary organization working in the same field."

During the course of arguments, the court was also taken through Section 79(2) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to contend that the selection of respondent No.4 is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. After analysing the affidavits, the court stated that the petitioner had been unable to demonstrate that he possesses the required experience, which is stipulated in the said advertisement.

As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent, the court stated that it was clear that the respondent No.4 post retirement had been working as OSD to very senior functionary, was Additional D.G., Prasar Bharti (Doordarshan and AIR) and also had experience as Principal Commissioner, DDA during the Common Wealth Games period and in that capacity had far-ranging experience with Persons with Disabilities and special projects involved therein.

The court also held that it would not act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion. It stated that–

"The Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability of an incumbent for the purposes of the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) have carried out the exercise and selected respondent No.4. The experience also, which is stipulated, has to be examined and evaluated by the Search and Selection Committee alone, since the parameters of eligibility conditions are best known to the experts...The issue regarding the non-interference by the courts in matters pertaining to the recommendations given by experts comprising the Search and Selection Committees is no more res integra."

The court relied upon the judgements of M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC and Dr. Prasannanshu v. Selection Committee for Vice Chancellor, NLU Delhi and another to state that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malafide or violation of statutory rules, Courts can intervene.

In view of the same, the court stated that the petitioner had failed to prove mala fide or serious violation of statutory rules in respect of the selection or the selection process carried out in the present case. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. 

CASE TITLE: DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661

Click Here To Read Order