Supreme Court Remands Case on Technical Assistant Appointment: Biju K.K. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 611

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court refuse to examine the merits of a Selection Committee’s decision simply because the committee made it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Technical Assistant at Cochin University of Science and Technology. The Court considered whether the High Court was right in not interfering with the Selection Committee’s decision regarding awarding marks for experience and eligibility criteria of candidates. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

Biju K.K., the appellant, was working as a Technical Assistant Grade-II on daily wages at the School of Engineering under the Cochin University of Science and Technology. He continued in this role with periodic breaks. Subsequently, he applied for a permanent position as Technical Assistant Grade-II, pursuant to a notification dated July 24, 2010. When the rank list was published, Biju K.K. was placed lower than expected because his previous service as a daily wager was not given due weightage in the experience marks.

Aggrieved by this, Biju K.K. filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. He also challenged the appointments of other candidates, specifically respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6, alleging they did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 5, who was found to be ineligible. However, the Single Judge did not interfere with the marks awarded to the appellant or respondent no. 6, stating that the Selection Committee had followed a certain criteria, and the court could not interfere with that decision under judicial review.

The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, dismissing the appeal. The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge’s view that the court should not interfere with the Selection Committee’s decision. This led to the appellant filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of judicial review and the extent to which a High Court can interfere with decisions of a Selection Committee. The case also considers the eligibility criteria for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-II, as specified in the notification issued by the University.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court should have considered the merits of the case, specifically:

• The Selection Committee wrongly denied him marks for his prior experience as a daily wager.
• Respondent no. 6 did not meet the eligibility criteria as he lacked experience in a Computer Science Lab, as required by the advertisement.

The appellant contended that the High Court erred in not examining these issues on their merits, simply relying on the Selection Committee’s decision. The appellant submitted that the High Court should have exercised its power of judicial review to check the correctness of the decision of the Selection Committee.

The University and other respondents argued that the Selection Committee had followed a set procedure and that the High Court should not interfere with the committee’s decision unless it was arbitrary or illegal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the core issues that the court dealt with are:

• Whether the High Court was justified in not examining the merits of the appellant’s claim that his prior service as a daily wager should have been considered for experience marks.
• Whether the High Court was justified in not examining the merits of the appellant’s claim that respondent no. 6 did not meet the eligibility criteria for the post.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the principles of judicial review and the High Court’s duty to examine the merits of the case.

The Court also considered the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement, namely “I Class Diploma in Computer Science and 3 years’ experience in respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities”.

Judgment

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court should have considered the merits of the appellant’s claim regarding the denial of marks for his prior service as a daily wager and the eligibility of respondent no. 6.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that High Courts should exercise their power of judicial review to examine the merits of decisions made by Selection Committees, especially when there are specific allegations of incorrect application of criteria or non-compliance with eligibility requirements. The Court was of the view that the High Court should not have refused to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee without examining the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court was wrong in not deciding the matter on merits. The court observed, “However, when the aforesaid plea was raised the High Court ought to have considered the same on merits. It is required to be noted that what was challenged was the decision of the Selection Committee and therefore, the High Court was not justified in not deciding the same on merits on the ground that when the Selection Committee has taken a decision, in exercise of powers under judicial review, the High Court is not required to interfere with the same.”

The Supreme Court further observed, “The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition afresh on whether the Selection Committee was justified in awarding the marks on experience ignoring the services rendered by the appellant as daily wager and also whether the respondent no.6 was fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria as per the advertisement namely “I Class Diploma in Computer Science and 3 years’ experience in respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities”.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must examine the merits of decisions made by Selection Committees, especially when there are allegations of incorrect application of criteria or non-compliance with eligibility requirements.
• Prior service as a daily wager should be considered when awarding marks for experience, and the Selection Committee should provide reasons for not considering the same.
• The eligibility criteria for a post must be strictly adhered to, and the Selection Committee must verify whether candidates meet the criteria.
• The High Court should not refuse to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee without examining the merits of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge of the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh. The Single Judge was directed to consider:

• Whether the Selection Committee was justified in awarding marks for experience, ignoring the services rendered by the appellant as a daily wager.
• Whether respondent no. 6 fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria as per the advertisement.

The Single Judge was also directed to allow the parties to produce additional documents, if they so choose, within four weeks from the date of the first hearing. The entire exercise was to be completed within six months from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts have a duty to exercise their power of judicial review to examine the correctness of decisions made by Selection Committees. The judgment also clarifies that Selection Committees must consider prior service as a daily wager when awarding marks for experience and that eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to. The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Court cannot refuse to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee without examining the merits of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Biju K.K. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The case was remanded back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration on the merits of the appellant’s claims. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial review and the need for Selection Committees to act fairly and transparently.