A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J).
1. The controversy arises to be determined in the present OAs is, whether the short listing of the candidates for their further consideration for the post of Director General in the Archaeological Survey of India in revised pay band HAG Rs. 67000-79000/- is in order or not .
2. As can be abridged from the pleadings of the parties, documents on record and written submissions brought to fore by the parties the Government of India, Ministry of Culture issued Office Memorandum F.No.7-52/2012/ASI/AS dated 20.11.2012 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Director General (ibid) in Archaeological Survey of India, an attached office of the Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/contract basis. The eligibility conditions prescribed for appointment to the post through different modes as mentioned in the Memorandum read as under:-
"Subject: Filling up the post of Director General in Archaeological Survey of India under Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/contract basis.
1. Applications are invited for appointment to the post of Director General (w.e.f. 19.01.2013) in the revised Pay Band HAG Rs.67000- (annual increment@ 3%)-79000/-General Central Service, (Group A ) Gazetted, Ministerial in Archaeological Survey of India an attached office of the Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/ contract basis.
1. Eligibility:
(A). Promotion Additional Director General in the Archaeological Survey of India (Pay Band IV with the grade pay of Rs.10000/-) with three years regular service in the grade. (B). Deputation
Officers under the Central Government or State Government or Union Territories or Public Sector Undertakings or Universities or Recognized Research Institutions or Semi-Government or Statutory and Autonomous organizations.
Holding analogous posts on regular basis; or With three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the post in the Pay Band 4,Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; and
(a).Possessing the following educational qualifications and experience:-
Post-graduate Degree from a recognized University or equivalent.
Fifteen years experience (including research work) in Archaeology or Architecture or Conservation or History or Anthropology out of which five years experience should be in administration matters.
Desirable: Bachelor s Degree in Management from a recognized University or equivalent.
Note. The maximum age limit for appointment by deputation shall not exceed 56 years as on the closing date for receipt of applications.
On Contract basis:
Persons possessing the qualifications and experience specified in item B above for appointment by deputation.
Note 1: The maximum age limit for appointment on contract shall not exceed 67 years as on the closing date of receipt of applications.
Note 2: Appointment on contract basis shall be for a period of three years and may be extended subject to satisfactory performance and maximum age limit of seventy years.
Note 3: In case of appointment by contract basis, the terms and conditions of service of the incumbent of the post shall be as applicable to a Group A officer of the Central Government holding analogous post.
2. Applications, in duplicate, in the prescribed proforma placed below (Annexure- 1 and Annexure-II) and complete and up- to-date CR dossiers of the Officers who can be spared in the event of their selection, should reach to undersigned through proper channel within a period of 60 days from the date of this O.M. Applications received after the last date or otherwise found incomplete will not be considered and stand rejected. The eligible candidates were to submit their applications in the format enclosed as Annexure-1 to the Office Memorandum. Both the applicants herein applied for the posts for their appointment on contract basis. Having completed initial process for filling up the vacant post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Culture requested the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister to place five names of the experts from one or more of the fields of Archaeology or Conservation or History or Anthropology to select the names of three experts to be included in the Search-cum-Selection Committee. As per the Recruitment Rules, the Committee comprised four ex officio members as follows:-
(i). Cabinet Secretary - Chairman
(ii). Principal Secretary to Prime Minister - Member (iii). Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training - Member
(iv). Secretary, Ministry of Culture “ Member Vide PMO ID No.3695344/2013-Pol-1/3531427/13 dated 14.02.2013, Joint Secretary to Prime Minister approved the following three experts for being included in the Select Panel.
Prof. K.Rajan Prof. Vibha Tripathi
(iii).Prof.A.K.ChatterjeeThe Search-cum-Selection Committee including the experts met on 28.03.2013. The Committee considered the candidature of all the 28 applicants and decided that 18 applicants were to be considered further, as the remaining candidates did not fulfill the eligibility criteria being not working at the appropriate senior level and their applications were not received through proper channel. The Committee also decided that a Sub-Committee of expert members will further discuss and decide on the criteria for short listing and then short list candidates for consideration of the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Thus, the Sub-Committee consisting of the experts, viz. Prof.K Rajan and Dr. A.K.Chatterjee, as constituted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, met on 28.03.2013 at 4.00PM and after detailed deliberations decided following criteria for short-listing the candidates:-
(1). Academic qualification in terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of DG, ASI
(2). Field experience in archaeological excavations, exploration, conservations and heritage management.
(3). Having administrative experience at senior level.
(4). Original research in the field of archaeology.
(5). The quality of publications in the field of archaeology.
After examining the bio data of all the candidates, the Committee short listed the following five candidates:
Prof Ravindra Korisettar Dr.Rakesh Tiwari Prof Kishor K.Basa Dr.B.R.Mani Dr.Vasant Shivram Shinde
Finally, the Search-cum-Selection Committee met on 10.05.2013 and was informed that as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 28.03.2013, the Sub-Committee of the Members, after examining the bio-data of candidates, short-listed the candidates mentioned hereinabove. The Committee took note of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee as recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 28.03.2013 and concurred with the same and after considering service records of all the five candidates, over all experience, profile and after detailed deliberations taking into account the performance of the candidates during the interaction session, it recommended the appointment of Dr.Rakesh Tiwari as DG, ASI for a period of three years on contract basis. Thus, the present OAs have been filed by the applicants questioning the process of short listing and seeking issuance of direction to respondents to undertake the exercise afresh by lawfully constituting a proper committee for the purpose of short listing the candidates for further consideration by the selection committee as per rules.
3. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant in OA No. 2109/2013 put forth his submission extensively and saliently espoused that:-
(i). One of the experts was closely related/ acquainted with the person who had been finally selected by the Selection Committee.
(ii).The eligibility criteria adopted by the Selection Committee for short listing the candidates from amongst all the applicants who had applied for the post was faulty in an much as it did not indicate, in what manner the short listing of the candidates was done.
(iii). Dr.A.K.Chatterjee, one of the three experts nominated by the Prime Minister s office, claimed as an expert in the field of Anthropology had his basic focus in research and overall experience towards Cultural Anthropology and not Physical Anthropology. It is the Physical Anthropology which has some overlap with Archaeology because the person pursuing specialization in Physical Anthropology needs to possess some knowledge in Paleolithic Culture/Stone Age Archaeology. The Cultural Anthropology in which Dr. Chatterjee has the specialization deals with the studies and researches on socio-cultural aspects of the contemporary tribes and aborigines. Thus the Ministry of Culture miserably failed to suggest an appropriate expert from the field of Anthropology. A person who has done research in Cultural Anthropology and not in the Physical Anthropology would be totally alien to Archaeology and could not have been picked up as an expert in a Committee meant to select a person to head the Archaeological Survey of India, as Director General.
(iv). The Ministry of Culture also misrepresented to the office of Prime Minister that Dr.A.K.Chatterjee was the former Head of Department of Anthropology, Indian Museum, Kolkata, as no such department exists in the Museum and the Museum has only the galleries devoted to Archaeology, Geology, Botony, Zoology, Anthropology, etc. and Dr. A.K.Chatterjee was incharge, holding the post of Keeper/Curator of one of the galleries, i.e. Anthropology. Being an officer who had served in the grade of Under Secretary (pay band of Rs.15600-39100; GP Rs.6600/-), he could not be an expert Member of the selection Committee which was to recommend/select a candidate for the post of Director General (equivalent to Additional Secretary to Government of India.)
(v). Dr. Chatterjee who had held a post in Anthropology gallery of Indian Museum equivalent to Under Secretary to the Government of India was assigned the major task for short listing the candidates. Once he had no idea of Archaeology, the short listing of candidates done by him cannot inspire any confidence.
(vi). The applicant in OA No. 2109/2013 had Masters degree from a recognized University, more than fifteen years experience (including research work in Archaeology/Architecture/ Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities/History) and has also about 30 years of administrative experience, besides extensive experience of management/conservation of ancient monuments and archaeological sites including the World Heritage sites like Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri, Agra Fort, Qutab Minar, Humayun s Tomb and Red Fort, thus it is not understood how he could be eliminated from the list of eligible candidates during first screening. Being not in active Government service, the said applicant could not have been subjected to the criteria of seniority level. Nevertheless, he had retired from the Archaeological Survey of India in 2011 as Director (Archaeology) and had served the department as Superintending Archaeologist for 15 years with independent charge of Delhi, Agra and Dehradun Circle as Superintending Archaeologist. In 2009, he was given the charge of Regional Director (Eastern Region) having jurisdiction of West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, eastern Districts of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim. He had applied for his appointment to the post of Director General on contract basis. Being not employed in any department at the time of submitting application, there was no question of submitting the application through proper channel. Even when one of the expert Members of the Committee, namely Prof. Vibha Tripathi was absent, on 28.3.2013, the Committee took the major decision to further short list the candidates.
(vii). There is no provision in the Recruitment Rules for short listing to be done by a sub-committee of expert members, more so with a major authority to decide on the criteria for short listing. Likewise, the Search-cum-Selection Committee had no authority to constitute a sub-committee for taking a vital decision of short listing the candidates.
(viii) Once the criteria of selection had been laid down, the sub-committee did not prepare any tabulated comparison of various attributes of the candidates. In other words, it is not clear that on what basis five out of the 10 candidates were short listed. The five candidates rejected by the sub-committee had the field experience in Archaeological excavations. Dr. D.P.Sharma, Prof. N.S. Rangaraju and Dr.K.M.Suresh did not possess the necessary expertise in the fields of conservation and heritage management, while Prof. R.C. Aggarwal and Dr. K.P.Poonacha (Applicant in OA No. 4221/2013) who were not short listed by the sub- committee had the necessary expertise in the field by virtue of their long association with the Archaeological Survey of India in various capacities.
(ix) As far as administrative experience at senior level is concerned, Dr. D.P.Sharma (Applicant in OA No. 2109/2013), Dr. K.M.Suresh, Dr.R.C. Aggarwal and Dr.K.P.Poonacha (applicant in OA No.4221/2013) had the necessary administrative experience at pretty senior level. The 5th candidate who was not short listed, namely Prof. N.S.Rangaraju also had similar administrative experience in the University system as possessed by Prof. Ravindra Korisettar and Prof. Vasant Shinde because all the three had similar experience of working in respective University, Department of Ancient Indian History, Archaeology and Culture. Surprisingly, Prof N.S.Rangaraju had been rejected whereas Prof. Vasant Shinde and Prof. Ravindra Korisettar were short listed by the sub-committee for final round of interview. What yardstick the sub-committee adopted to short list the candidates with reference to original research in the field of Archaeology, is beyond any comprehension because no such document had been produced by respondent No.1. All the rejected applicants had excellent research experience in the field of Archaeology to their credit.
(x). When the publication was one of the yard sticks prescribed to short list the candidates, it is not understood what criteria was resorted to by the sub-committee in this regard. All the candidates who were not short listed by the sub-committee had quality publication to their credit. Many of them even had published works, books and research papers published in reputed national and international journals. Three of the candidates short listed for final interview, namely, Prof. Ravindra Korisettar, Prof. K.K.Basu and Prof. Vasant Shinde had absolutely no experience in the field of conservation and heritage management. Even the experience of Dr. Rakesh Tewari, i.e. respondent No. 6 who had been finally selected for appointment as Director General of Archaeological Survey of India by Search-cum-Selection Committee based upon the short listing done by the sub-committee hardly had the requisite experience in the field of conservation and heritage management.
(xi). In Column 12 of the schedule to the RRs, for the post in question, the persons possessing qualification and experience specified in item II for appointment on deputation could alone be eligible for appointment to the post on contract basis, but the respondent No. 6 who was not in the grade pay of Rs.10000/- could be recommended for appointment in the post.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik also filed written submissions reiterating the aforementioned arguments. Mr.S.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No 4221/2013, adopted the submissions made by Mr. Naresh Kaushik. Rather, the written submissions filed by Mr. Naresh Kaushik, advocate were in both the OAs.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Learned Additional Solicitor General appeared on behalf of respondents submitted:-
"Vide note dated 01.02.2013, the proposal for appointment of expert was put up before the Prime Minister who approved the names of three experts vide PMO ID No. 2695344/2013-Pol.1/3531427/13 dated 14.02.2013.
The expert Members were picked up in conformity with the requirement in the RRs, i.e. experts from Archaeology or Conservation or History or Anthropology.
The expertise of a person cannot be co-related to the substantial post/rank held by him or the level of such post/rank.
In A.Tripathi and Another Vs. J.P.Gupta and Others (1993 (1) SCC 426), it has been held that it is not necessary that Vishesagya to be nominated in the Selection Committee must necessarily be a Vishesagya in a particular field of speciality.
As has been viewed by Hon ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) Nos. 2198 and 2889/1993 (Gaya Charan Tripathi, Ram Kishore Shukla Vs. UOI and Ors, decided on 3.05.1994, as also by Hon ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in Prof. S. Jalal and Anr Vs. State of J and K. and Ors decided on 28.05.2008), in the absence of provisions in the recruitment rules in this regard, it cannot be said that the Constitution of Selection Committee was illegal and even if there is doubt about the expertise or special knowledge of one of the experts, the Committee consisted of more than one experts.
The plea raised by the applicants that Prof. Vibha Tripathi, one of the nominated experts was related to respondent No. 6, is incorrect. Merely because the said respondent addressed her as Bua ji which is a colloquial term, no blood relation between the two can be said to be established. Besides, Prof Vibha Tripathi was absent from the meeting of the Selection Committee on 28.03.2013 when the screening of 28 candidates was held and 18 candidates were short listed and again from the meeting of sub-committee of experts on 28.03.2013 in which final 5 candidates were short listed.
Having been declared unsuccessful in the selection, the applicants are stopped from questioning the same.
In the absence of any concrete evidence of malafide, the judicial review of the recommendations of the Selection Committee is not permissible. The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts and determine the comparative merits of the candidates.
The criteria of being employed in a particular band with a specific grade pay cannot be applied to a candidate to be considered for appointment on contract basis. Only the qualification and experience prescribed for appointment on deputation was required to be satisfied by candidates sought to be considered for appointment to the post on contract basis.
In OA No. 16/2010 titled Dr. K.M.Suresh Vs. UPI and Ors, the plea regarding the eligibility of a candidate who was not working in the pay band of Rs.10000/- was considered by Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal and was rejected.
In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution, the President made the Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Amendment Regulations, 2009, exempting the requirement of consultation with Union Public Service Commission in the matter of appointment to the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
The Constitution of the sub-committee of experts/Member for the purpose of second round of short listing is not arbitrary or illegal. The sub-committee was identified by all the members of Selection Committee themselves for the purpose of selecting the best amongst the short listed candidates. The recommendations of the sub-committee as recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 28.03.2013 were concurred in by the Search-cum-Selection Committee in its meeting held on 10.05.2013.
The modes of recruitment as given in Column 11 of the schedule to the rules are not in the order of preference and are only intended to give options. The punctuation solidus used in column 11 of the schedule to the recruitment rules cannot be understood as failing which .
Learned Additional Solicitor General has also placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(1). Dr.G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors (1976) 3 SCC 585).
(2).Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors v. Dr.B.S.Mahajan and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305).
(3). A Tripathi and Anr v. J.P.Gupta and Ors (1993) 1 SCC 426)
(4). Rasmiranjan Das v. Sarojkanta Behera and Ors (2000) 10 SCC 502)
(5). Charanjit Singh and Ors v. Harinder Sharma and Ors ( 2002) 9 SCC 732)
(6). UPSC v K.Rajaiah and Ors (2005) 10 SCC 15)
(7). Jagat Bandhu Chakraborti v. G.C. Roy and Ors (2002) 9 SCC 739).
(8). Union of India and Anr. V. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 188).
(9). UPSC v. L P Tiwari and Ors ( 2006) 12 SCC 317)
(10). Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and Ors ( 2010) 8 SCC 372)
(11). Gaya Charan Tripathi, Ram Kishore Sukla v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) ILR Delhi 320)
(12). Shashi Manhas (Dr) v. University of Jammu and Ors ( 2005) (2) JKJ 251) (13). Prof. S.Jalal and Anr. v. State of J and K Ors ( 2009) (2) JKJ 70).
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 filed his revised written submission on 14.03.2014. In the said submission, he espoused that:-
(i). The answering respondent could fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in the RRs of 2005. In terms of Column 12 (a) (ii) of schedule to the RRs all those who were occupying the post in the scale of Rs.37,000-67,000/- or equivalent in the parent cadre or department were eligible for the post and who had worked in the said pay scale. The answering respondent had acquaintance with Prof. Vibha Tripathi as alumni of Banaras Hindu University, UP and she had not even participated in the meeting of the Search-cum-Selection Committee/ sub-committee, thus his selection cannot be held to be vitiated on the account that Prof. Vibha Tripathi who was elderly his Aunt ( Bua ji), was member of the Screening Committee.
(ii). A detailed tabulated chart showing the details of comparison of profiles filed of the applicants and the respondent No. 6 would reflect that he deserves the selection on merit. The tabulated comparison of qualification of the applicant in OA No.2109/2013 (Dr.Dharam Veer Sharma) and applicant in OA No.4221/2013 (Dr.K.P.Poonacha) with respondent No.6, as submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 6, reads as under:-
Qualifications Rakesh Tiwari Detailed in attached Bio-dataDharam Veer Sharma according to the Resume Ann A/1 of the WP Educational Ph.D. 1985 Ph.D.2005 Publications More than 150 28 25 8+17=(Reports, books/edited Volumes) 5 (books and edited Volumes) 113 (articles etc.) 13 Articles 23 (edited Journals) X 8+5=13 (other) X 12 (General publications) X Submitted for publication 14 (13 articles and 1 report) 1 Papers presentations at Conference 39 (including 9 international) 3 InvitedLectures 6 X Seminar/Workshop ps Organised 9 X Fellowships Three (i) Visiting Fellow ( June-July 2008) at the MCDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge Under UKIERI project on Land Water and Settlement:
Environmental constraints and human responses in northwest India between 2000 and 300 BC.
(ii). 2003. Wallace India Fellowship in Ancient Indian History at the Ancient India and Iran Trust, Cambridge as Visiting Scholar, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, prepared draft of a book on The Archaeology, Ancient Architecture and Art of Uttarkhanda and a paper on The Myth of Dense Forest in The Ganga Plain.
(ii). 1976. University Research Scholarship, BHU: worked on the Stone Age Industries of Palamau, Bihar and brought to light a good number of Stone Age sites. X Professional experience 35 years 35 years Professional Training imparted 6 +
( to Post graduate students of different Universities)+ Several Archaeology and Art Appreciation Courses + Lectures for the students of PGDA students of the Institute of Archaeology, ASI from time to time. 2 The Institute of Archaeology, ASI Membership of academic societies 5
1. Indian Archaeological Society.
2.Prehistoric and Quatermary Studies.
3. Rock Art Society (RAR Australia)
4. Rock Art Society of India (RASI)
5. Society of South Asian Archaeology
2 Membership of Important Committees 6 (including Central Advisory Board of Archaeology CABA) X
Field of specialization Pre and Proto Historic to medieval archaeology Pre and Proto Historic to medieval archaeology Professional Experience Lecturer-X; 2 yrs c.2 years Exploration Assist. U.P.State Archaeology Dept (UPSAD) 5 yrs c.3 5 yrs Regional Archaeological Officer (UPSAD)7 yrs c.6 yrs Excavation and Exploration Officer (UPSAD) 9 yrs DYSA 13 yrs As Superintending Archaeologist (SA) 23 + yrs Director (UPSAD) 2 yrs As Director ADDITIONAL 5 X
Director, State Archieves, Lucknow c.4 yr. Director, State Museum, Lucknow 4+ years Director, Jaina Vidya Shodha Sansthan, Lucknow 4+ yrs Director, Acharya Narendra Deva International Research Institute, Lucknow c.3 yr. c.4 Yr.
Director, Ayodhya Shodha Sansthan, Faizabad Conducted excavation 14 (8 Directed/conducted + 6 carried out under general direction) 11)
(7 Directed + 4 participated only as an Assistant) Conducted Exploration 20 + (detailed in attached) 6 International Collaborations
1. Field Study of the Ancient Routes (1999-2000 to 2002-2003). From the Ganga Plain to the Eastern and Western Deccan: in collaboration with the Cambridge University and BHU.
2. Ancient Settlements of the Ganga Plain (1996-2005): in collaboration with the Cambridge University BHU.
3. From the collapse of Harappan urbanism to the rise of the great Early Historic cities 2007-2010 in collaboration with the University of Cambridge and Banaras Hindu University in the UKERI project. X Participation in Seminar/Workshop/ Exhibition.
1. International Congress on Rock Art. Darwin (Australia) 1988.
2. International Conference of the Society of the European Association of South Asia Archaeologists: London 2005
3. Conference on The Piprahwa Excavation: Fraud. Hoax or Buddhist Archaeology s Greatest Discovery? Harewood House, Yorkshire, (UK), 2006
4. International Conference of the Society of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists: Revenna (Italy) 2007.
5. ARCHAI Training Seminar, Archaeological research and restoration of monuments ., Bologa (Italy) 2008
6. International Symposium on Ancient Ceramics (ISAC 09) Beijing (China) 2009
7. Workshop at the MCDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge on Land Water and Settlement-2009
8. International Conference on Connecting World Heritage Sites and Civilization, Santiago, CHILE, 2012
1. USA-France during Festival of India Exhibition 1986.
2. Conservation advise Beijing, China 2000
3. France to attend South Asian Archaeological Congress 2001.
4. Iran to attend a workshop 2007. Other Relevant Information Examiner MA of different Universities MA of different Universities Research Supervision 2 X Thesis Examined 6 Different Universities X OA 4221/2013
Qualifications Rakesh Tiwari Detailed in attached Bio-data Dr. K.P. Poonacha according to the Resume Ann with the WP Academic Educational Ph.D Ph.D Fellowships Three.
(i). Visiting Fellow (June-July 2009) at the MCDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge Under UKIERI project on Land Water and Settlement: Environmental constraints and human responses in northwest India between 2000 and 300 BC.
(ii). 2003. Wallace India Fellowship in Ancient Indian History at the Ancient India and Iran Trust, Cambridge as Visiting Scholar, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, prepared draft of a book on The Archaeology, Ancient Architecture and Art of Uttarkhanda and a paper on The Myth of Dense Forest in The Ganga Plain .
(ii). 1976. University Research Scholarship, BHU: worked on the Stone Age Industries of Palamau, Bihar and brought to light a good number of Stone Age sites. X Field experience Conducted excavation 14.
(8 Directed/ conducted +6 carried out under general direction) 07 (5 Directed + 2 participated as an assistant or student) Conducted/Directed Exploration 20 + (detailed in attached)
Besides several exploration projects have been conducted under general direction 22 Mainly reporting of single sites. Heritage management and ConservationLooked after the State Protected monuments and sites in Uttar Pradesh for 23 yr Looked after the Centrally Protected monuments Primary Research Contribution (National/International level)
1. Antiquity of consistent human activity in the Ganga Plain from c.10th millennium yr before present,
2. Antiquity of rice domestication in 7th millennium BC Kanganhallii 3. Contacts between Middle Ganga Plain and Harappan Zone in 3rd millennium BC
4. Antiquity of iron pushed back to first half of 2nd millennium BC
5. Discovery of hundreds of new archaeological remains including painted rock shelters, pre and proto historic sites, architectural and sculptural members, ancient inscriptions etc.
Publications More than 150 ( 25 reports, books/edited Volumes; 113 articles etc.in National and International journals and proceedings; 23 edited Journals; 25 other)
Note: many of the above publications have been and are being cited in many national and internal publications 13 articles and 1 report submitted for publication 39 Papers presentations at Conference (including 9 international) (2 books, 1 edited volumes and 24 articles) 1 submitted for publication. Administrative experience as director 23 + yrs As Director, in the U.P. State Archaeology Department 11 yr 9 yr as Director/2 yr Joint DGPh.D Thesis Supervision 02 0 Ph. D Thesis examined 06 02. 6. We heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. As far as the plea of applicants regarding relation/acquaintance of respondent No. 6 with Prof. Vibha Tripathi is concerned, we find that respondent No. 1 has denied blood relation with the applicant, while he has explained that she was known to her as alumni of Banaras Hindu University. Undoubtedly the presence of the proximate to a candidate participating in the selection in Search-cum-Selection Committee would vitiate the selection process on the ground of bias and unfairness. Nevertheless, in the present case, the applicants could not bring to fore any material to establish either the blood relation or the close proximity of respondent No.6 with Prof. Vibha Tripathi. Merely because on a social website, the applicant called Prof. Vibha Tripathi as Bua Ji, we may not held that they are closely related to each other. In the written submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is stated that Prof. Bua Ji is a colloquial term commonly used to address an elderly person to give respect and does not signify any actual blood relationship. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6, it has categorically been stated that the answering respondent and Prof. Vibha Tripathi are alumni of Banaras Hindu University, thus are known to each other and are not related to each other. For easy reference, relevant excerpts of the reply are extracted hereinbelow:-
It is most humbly submitted that Mrs.Vibha Tripathi is only college senior of the answering respondent and the answering respondents addresses her as Bua out of respect only because she later became teacher in the department of Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, where the answering respondent studied.
A. That the averments are misleading, incorrect, thus denied. It is most humbly stated that the answering respondent and Mr.Tripathi are not relatives, but only acquaintance due to being from the same field and profession. It is most humbly submitted that Mrs.Vibha Tripathi is only college senior of the answering respondent and the answering respondent addresses her as Bua out of respect only because she was later became teacher in the department of Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, where the answering respondent studied.
7. In Rasmiranjan Das Vs. Sarokanta Behera and Ors (supra), relied upon by learned ASG, it has been viewed that the distant relations of one out of five Members of the Selection Committee with the appellant could be no ground to interfere with the selection. For easy reference, the brief order passed by their Lordships is reproduced hereinbelow:-
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court has set aside the selection of the appellant to the post of clerk in Sailo Grama Panchayat High School only on the ground that out of five members of the Selection Committee, one of the members was related to the appellant. The State has filed an affidavit setting out that the selection was properly made after a written test and an interview. Rule 31(1) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules, 1991 prohibits participation in selection by a near relation of any candidate. In the present case, the degree of relationship between the appellant and the member of the Selection Committee is remote by six degrees. Therefore, the appellant cannot be considered as a near relation of the member of the Selection Committee. Since this is the sole ground for setting aside the selection by the High Court, we set aside the order of the High Court.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, since this is a Legal Aid matter, there will be no order as to costs.
Further in Charanjit Singh and Ors Vs. Harinder Sharma and Ors (2002) 9 SCC 732), the Hon ble Supreme Court has recorded thus:-
3.An examination of the matter in detail would indicate that though some of the selected candidates were related to the members of the selection committee, others were not related at all. However, certain rules have been framed under the Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 and rule 7 provides that "no member of the committee shall be present or vote at or take any other part in any proceeding of a committee or sub-committee relating to a matter in which such member, either or his parents or descendants of such members, or descendant of any parent of such members, or descendant or parent of the husband or wife of such member or descendant of such parent last referred to, has a direct or indirect interest". Under rule 8, such relations could be appointed with the previous approval of the regional deputy director, local government.
4. The rationale behind this rule is that in a small place like Mansa that most persons are related to one or the other. What needs to be considered is whether they are so closely related as mentioned in rule 7 of the Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 or not and whether they comply with rule 8 or not. That aspect was lost sight of by the High Court or rather brushed aside.
5. The government itself on the receipt of the report did not find it expedient to set aside the orders of appointments made pursuant to the selections. None of the candidates who had participated in the process of selection and not selected, have filed the writ petition. the petition is filed by the respondent in the nature of public interest litigation and two of them being municipal councillors are parties to the decision of approving the selections made. the public interest in such matters would be adequately protected if rules are duly complied with. We do not think there was any reason for High Court to have interfered with the selections made. the High Court on a perfunctory consideration has upset the selections made without examining the matter in depth. We, therefore, set aside the order made by the High Court and allow this appeal. the writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 stands dismissed. No costs.
In view of the aforementioned, it may be difficult to accept the bald plea of the applicants that the impugned selection process has to be abased, because of relationship of Member of Selection Committee with respondent No. 6. The plea may not be countenanced also on the ground that Prof Vibha Tripathi could not attend either of the meetings of Search-cum-Selection Committee/sub-committee which short listed and recommended the candidates for selection.
8. It is true that in column 13 of the schedule to the RRs, it is specifically provided that the Selection Committee needs to comprise three experts from one or more of the fields of Archaeology or Conservation or History or Anthropology nominated with the approval of the Hon ble Prime Minister from amongst 5 experts, as suggested by the Ministry of Culture with the approval of Minister of Culture. We find from the records that the Minister of Culture had approved the names of the following experts for being nominated in the Committee.
(i). Prof K. Rajan, University of Pondichery
(ii). Prof. K.K.Bhan, University of Baroda
(iii). Prof Vibha Tripathi, Banaras Hindu University
(iv). Dr.M.V.Nair, Professor,National Museum Institute, New Delhi.
(v). Dr.A.K.Chatterjee, Former Head of Department of Anthropology, Indian Museum.
From amongst the aforementioned nominees of the Ministry of Culture, the Hon ble Prime Minister approved the following three experts for inclusion in Search-cum-Selection Committee:-
Prof. K.Rajan
Prof. Vibha Tripathi
(iii).Prof.A.K.Chatterjee It is true that Prof. Vibha Tripathi did not participate in the meeting of either of the Search-cum-Selection Committee or sub-committee. Might be her absence was on account of doubt expressed by the candidates regarding her proximity with respondent No. 6.
9. In Prof. S. Jalal and Anr Vs. State of J. and K. and Ors, (2009 (2) JKJ 70), it has been held that non-participation of one of the Members in the Selection Committee in the selection process cannot vitiate the entire selection. In the said case, it was further held that even when Director, PGI, Chandigarh could not participate in the process of selection due to personal reasons, the presence of Dr.Naseer Ahmed was sufficient to evaluate the knowledge of the candidates in the relevant fields. For easy reference, para 13 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
13. The composition of the selection committee would indicate that the committee comprised of high ranking officers of the State with Chief Secretary as its Chairman, which included Dr. Naseer Ahmad Shah, former Principal Government Medical College, Srinagar as one of its members. Dr. Naseer Ahmad Shah having remained as Principal Government Medical College, Srinagar, had vast experience in the field of medical education and hospital administration. True that Director, PGI, Chandigarh could not participate in the process of selection due to personal reasons, but presence of Dr.Naseer Ahmad Shah would be sufficient to evaluate the knowledge of the candidates in the relevant field so also others who are experts in the field of administration. In any view, the expertise and experience of Dr. Naseer Ahmad Shah was not questioned in the writ petition apart from the vague averment that he is not an expert either in the field of hospital administration or in the field of surgery. The fact that he had remained as Principal of the Government Medical College, Srinagar for number of years would be sufficient enough to show that he was conversant with the field of hospital administration and medical education. In any view, the petitioner having participated in the selection process and failed to make the grade cannot question Lie competence or composition of the selection committee especially when he has not attributed allegation of any bias or arbitrariness against any of the members of the Selection Committee. Law on the point has been well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of JandK, MANU/SC/0208/1995: ( 1995)3 SCC 486, wherein the Court, dealing with the scope of Rule 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967, held that, it is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, MANU/SC/0478/1986: 1986 Supp SCC 285, and K.H. Siraj V. High Court of Kerala, MANU/SC/8184/2006: (2006) 6 SCC 395. Reference ma also be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanajay Malik and Ors v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. 2008 (2) Supreme 328. Referring to the various previous decisions on the point, including the one in Madan Lal v. State of JandK (supra), the Apex Court held as under:-
It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
Petitioner, in my view, after having participated in the selection process without any demur and failed to make the grade cannot be allowed to challenge the composition of the selection committee or the mode of assessment of merit.
It has been accepted on behalf of applicants in para 1.4 of the written submissions that Prof. K.Rajan and Prof. Vibha Tripathi were from the domain of Arachaeology, thus once an expert from a particular domain was present in the Selection Committee, the object of provision of having expert in the Selection Committee incorporated in the schedule to the RRs was achieved. As far as the plea of the applicant regarding the grade of Dr. A.K.Chatterjee nominated as expert in the Selection Committee is concerned, as can be seen from the schedule to the RRs (Column 13), when the Chairman and three members of the Committee are specified by designation, i.e. Cabinet Secretary as Chairman and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Secretary (Culture), Principal Secretary to Hon ble Prime Minister as Members, no grade/rank/designation of the experts is mentioned. The only provision regarding the eligibility of the experts as mentioned in the rules is that they should be from the fields of Archaeology or Conservation or History or Anthropology and need to be suggested by Ministry of Culture with the approval of Minister of Culture and nominated by the Prime Minister. It has been made the clean breast of on behalf of the applicants that the experts in the Selection Committee were suggested by the Ministry of Culture and nominated by the Prime Minister only. Such factual position is also supported by the documents placed on record by respondent nos 1and 2 as enclosures to the counter reply and written submissions.
10. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant in OA No. 2109/2013 also questioned the projection of Dr.A.K.Chatterjee as former head of Department of Anthropology, Indian Museum, Kolkata. As can be seen from the curriculum vitae of Dr. A.K.Chatterjee placed on record at Annexure A/4 to OA No.2109/2013, his academic qualification, current professional activities and position in Professional Organization read as under:-
Academic Qualifications: Ph.D (in Science) in Cultural Anthropology, Calcutta University, Trained in Museology by the Department of Culture, Government of India, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. A British Museums of London (UK), Museums of Germany, France, Portugal-Austria, Spain Current Professional Activities :
* Museum Consultant * Faculty: Museology Dept., Calcutta University. Teaching Social Anthropology
* Examiner of M.A., M.Sc and Ph.D Examination in Anthropology and Museology of Calcutta University, Vidyasagar University and Asiatic Society, Calcutta.
* Member of the Board of Studies of the National Museum Institute, New Delhi.
* Former, Keeper, Indian Museum Kolkata Position in Professional Organisation * Chairman: Indian National Committee of the International Council of Museum (Paris) ICOM.
* Vice President: Museum Association of India.
* Consultant:
(a) Rarah Sankrity Sangrahalaya(Ethno-Archaeology Museum), Midnapore, West Bengal, India.
(b). Manav Bikash Sangrahalaya, GBPI Allahabad (UP).
* Chairman: Technical Expert Committee for the development of the Museum of Orissa, Govt. of Orissa.
* Life Member: Indian Antropological Society, Indian Art History Congress. Honours Awards etc.)
* Represented Indian National Committee of ICOM (Paris) in the Executive Board Meeting and Advisory Council Meeting of ICOM held in Paris in 1985.
* Visited and Studied the Museums of Bremen and Hamburg of Germany and Museums at London (UK) and Paris (France) in 1985.
* Delivered Lecture on Cultural Property Protection Methodology followed in India with reference to other countries of Asia Pacific region in 1987 at Smithsonian Institution Washington DC, USA.
* Attended an International Seminar on Museology as speaker held at Lisbon (Portugal) in 1990 and at Vienna (Austria) in 1991.
* Visited the Museums of Signapor and Taiwan, as Senior Museolgist from India During 2002 to 2003.
* Attended as delegate of Govt. of India an International Conference Organised by ICOM (Paris) in Bercelona (Spain) in 2001 and in Vienna (Austria) to 2007 in Seoul (Korea) in 2008, in Paris (France) 2009.
In view of the aforementioned academic qualification, current professional activities and position in professional organization of Dr.A. K.Chatterjee, it cannot be viewed that he was not adept in the field of Anthropology. The mere projection of a Keeper (Curator) of a gallery (Anthropology) as head of Anthropology department can be no ground to declare the entire selection process vitiated, more particularly for the reason that the Chairman and three members of the Committee were sufficiently higher in rank than the post for which selection was to be made and practically the job of the experts was to judge the professional skill of the candidates.
11. In A Tripathi and Anr Vs. J.P.Gupta and Ors (1993) 1 SCC 426), relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it has been viewed that the Vishesagya to be nominated in the selection Committee means a person having special knowledge ( Vishes means special and Agya means person having knowledge). In the said case, their Lordships viewed that Mr. Venkataramani a person with wide experience in administration over the years and by virtue of his position as Chairman of Jal Nigam had the special knowledge in the administrative set up of Jal Nigam, thus was a Vishesagya . For easy reference, para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it does not appear to us that the 'Vishesagya' to be nominated in the Selection Committee must necessarily be a 'Vishesagya' in a particular field of speciality. Such expression has not been explained either explicitly or by necessary implication. Literally the expression 'Vishesagya' in Hindi means a person having special knowledge ('Vishes' means special and 'Agya' means person having knowledge). Mr Venkataramani was a person with wide experience in administration over the years and by virtue of his position as Chairman of Jal Nigam, he had also special knowledge in the administrative set-up of Jal Nigam. He is therefore, a 'Vishesagya' particularly from the point of view of administration. In the absence of any indication or any government order placed before us that in the context of exercise to be made by the Selection Committee to prepare a panel of Officers fit to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II of the Jal Nigam, the expert to be nominated by the Chief secretary to the Selection Committee should be an expert in the field of Engineering or for that matter in the particular speciality of Engineering namely Irrigation and Waterways, it cannot be held that appointment of Mr Venkataramani as a 'Vishesagya' was per se illegal and as such the constitution of the Selection Committee was invalid and selection made by such committee is liable to be annulled. Since the exercise to be made by the Selection Committee is to find out suitable persons to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II, it is reasonably expected that the Committee should be constituted in such a manner that technical expertise of the selected candidates in the field of operation to which their services will be required may be reasonably assessed. It is quite likely that since the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam having technical expertise in the field of engineering was included in the Committee, the Chairman who is also an expert in general administration was appointed in the committee as an expert member. The Additional Chief Engineer is reasonably expected to look after administrative set-up under its control besides the technical works involved in the field of his activities. It has been specifically stated in the counter-affidavits of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Jal Nigam that the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was earlier appointed as an expert member in the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee of 1989 was constituted by the Bureau of Public Enterprise. This high-power committee has made all the exercises to select officers to be included in the panel and on such selection, recommendations were made to the State government and the State government has also approved the panel. No other officer coming in the zone of consideration except the writ petitioner Shri Gupta, has challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee and the validity of the panel of the selected officers. Such challenge has been made just at the nick of time when the selected officers were going to be appointed pursuant to their merit positions in the selection list. But for the writ proceedings, and interim order passed therein, both Shri Tripathi and Shri Rizvi, would have got the appointments in the post of Additional Chief Engineer Level II, and would have continued in such post. As a matter of fact, they had been given appointments to the post of Additional Chief Engineer but in view of the interim order passed in the writ proceedings such orders were recalled and they were reverted to the post of Superintending Engineer. In the facts of the case, we do not think that it will be proper to cancel the selection of Shri Tripathi and Shri Rizvi, made by Selection Committee constituted in 1989. Since the selection made by the .Committee constituted in 1989 is legal and valid the panel prepared by Selection Committee in 1985 came to an end. It also appears to us that the Administration should not have acted with undue haste in appointing persons included in the panel of selected officers on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted in 1992 before the disposal of the pending appeals before this court or at least without taking leave from this court to fill up such posts. Such appointments having been made during the pendency of these appeals must abide by the result of these appeals. It however appears to us that Shri Gupta was included in the list of selected officers in 1985 and if diligent steps had been taken to fill up available vacancies on the basis of merit positions in the select list of 1989, Shri Gupta should have been absorbed even before the exercise of selecting suitable officers fit for promotion was made by the Selection Committee of 1989. Admittedly there were vacancies available in 1989 when such exercise was made. Since selection made by the Committee of 1985 was not challenged and it is nobody's case that such selection is otherwise illegal and invalid, we are inclined to hold by accepting the contention of the learned counsel of Shri Gupta that the life of the panel formed in 1985 had continued till new selection was made by the Selection Committee in 1989.
12. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, also extensively submitted that the two experts were not from the required field i.e. Physical Anthropology. To buttress such submission, he emphasized on the field of Dr. A.K. Chatterjee and espoused that his basic focus and overall experience during his career had been in the field of Cultural Anthropology and not Physical Anthropology. As can be seen from the schedule to the RRs, the experts were required to be from the fields of Archaeology or Conservation or History or Anthropology. It has been made the clean breast of in para 1.4 of the written submissions filed on behalf of applicants that Prof. K.Rajan was from the domain of Archaeology and Dr.A.K.Chatterjee represented Anthropology. For easy reference, para 1.4 of the written submission is reproduced hereinbelow:-
1.4. It is further submitted that out of the 2 above nominated experts, Prof. K.Rajan and Prof.Vibha Tripathi were from the domain of Archaeology, whereas Dr.A.K.Chatterjee represented Anthropology.
Also in Gaya Charan Tripathi, Ram Kishore Shukla Vs. Union of India and Ors (1995) ILR Delhi 320), it could be viewed that in the absence of RRs in this regard, it cannot be said that the constitution of the Selection Committee is illegal or improper. Para 6 and 13 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
(6). In Cwp 2198193, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid recommendations of the Selection Committee, inter alia, on the grounds that: (1) the Selection Committee was not properly constituted inasmuch us Dr. K.N.Rao who had acted as Chairman of the Selection Committee had neither any Degree in Sanskrit language nor had any association with the propagation, teaching, training or research in the filed of Sanskrit learning and Dr.S.Janaki having the Reader Scale at the fag end of her career was not competent enough to judge the suitability of the candidates of the professor Scale, (2), respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite 10 years teaching experience as Professor Reader at a University or in a Post Graduate College as also 5 years experience of educational administration. In support of his stand that respondent No.3 did not have 5 years experience of educational administration, the petitioner points out that the said respondent was discharged from the post of Deputy Education Officer in the Ministry of Human Resources Development before completing his probation term of two years and reverted back to his parent institution, National Council of Educational Research and Training (in short the NCERT). The petitioner also challenges the selection of respondent No.6, Dr. R.K.Shukla on the ground that: (1) he has hardly any publication to his credit and (2) he has no knowledge of English language, one of the desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. On these grounds the petitioner has prayed that selection of respondent No.3 the post of respondent No.3 to the post of Director be set aside with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold a fresh selection turn the said post.
xxx xxx
13. It is common ground that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Director nor are there any rules, statutory or otherwise governing the constitutional of the Selection Committee, in the absence, where of it cannot be said that the constitution of the Selection Committee as illegal or improper. Though we are not satisfied with the allegation that Dr.K.N.Rao has no knowledge of the Sanskrit language but keeping in view the fact that duties of a Director are basically of administrative nature, the inclusion, of Dr. Rao, with vast administrative experience, in the Selection Committee could, not be said to be otherwise illegal in any way. Keeping in view the academic background of Dr. S.Janaki, no fault can be found with her inclusion in the Selection Committee. Similar is the position regarding the allegation, of violation of the procedure vitiating the selection process as none has been shown to exist.
As has been noticed hereinabove, that in the present case, the RRs do not contain any provision regarding the grade /rank /designation of the expert. Thus, we are of the view that the presence of Dr. Chatterjee in the Selection Committee as an expert did not vitiate the selection in any manner.
13. As far as the plea of the applicants regarding their non-inclusion in the shortlist of the candidates for interview is concerned, as has been viewed by Hon ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Srinagar in Pro. S.Jalal and Anr Vs. State of J. and K. and Ors (supra), when the rules governing the selection and appointment do not lay down any procedure for the Selection Committee for being followed to assess the merit and suitability of the candidates, the Committee in its wisdom may evolve its own procedure. Thus, if on the basis of a transparent criteria, i.e. eligibility, seniority level and non-receipt of the application through proper channel, the Search- cum-Selection Committee short listed the candidates in its meeting dated 28.03.2010, the selection cannot be held to be abased or vitiated. Still to satisfy our conscious, whether the short listing has been done objectively or not, we called upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce tabulated comparison of profile of such candidates. Since it is respondent No. 6 i.e. Dr. Rakesh Tewari who is finally selected and four other candidates who were short listed ahead of the two applicants before us, we had required the respondents to produce the comparative table in respect of applicants and the aforementioned five candidates. For easy reference, the comparative table is reproduced hereinbelow:-
CRITERIA Dr.Rakesh Tiwari Dr. Dharam Vir Sharma Dr.K.P.Poonacha Present Status Director, U.P.State Archaeology Government of Uttar Pradesh Consultant at National monuments authority Retired as Jt. Director ASI Academic qualification M.A. Ancient Indian History, culture and Archaeology Ph.D Ancient History Wallace India Fellowship in Ancient Indian History M.A. History (Medieval) Certificate in Persian language .P.G. Diploma in Archeology .M.Phil .PhD (History) MA (Ancient History and Archaeology) PG Diploma in Archaeology Ph.D (Archaeology)
Field Experience Excavations at 14 sites Exploration at 20 sites Conservation and Protection of Ancient Monuments-36 archeological sites declared protected, Prepared Drafts for 2 Government Notifications, Established Site Museums at 6 locations Excavations at 11 sites Explorations at 6 sites. Explorations at 12 sites Excavations at 7 Administrative Experience at senior level Director, UP State Archaeological Department-23 years 5 months Regional Director, Kolkata-2 years Director Antiquity, ASI-6 months Director (monuments/Conservation/World Heritage/national Culture Fund/Planning/Antiquities/Museums/ Exhibition)-11 years Original Research. Repots/Mono- graps-9.Papers/Reviews Feature/notes -113 .Edited Journals/Review -3. Edited Volumes-16. ResearchPublications-13. Unpublished Publicaions-1 Research Articles/ Papers-15 Publications. General Publications-15 Papers Sum- mitted for Publications-13. Manuscripts-3. Books-5 .Papers at Conferences-3. Books/Excavation
Repots-3 Academic Papers-15 Prof. Ravindra KorisettarProf. K.Basa Dr.B.R.Mani Dr.Vasant Shivram Shinde Prof. Dept.of History and Archaeology,
Karnataka University
Department of
Anthropology, Utkal University, Bhubaseswar Additional Director General, ASI Professor of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune .MA (Archelogy)
.Ph.D (Archeology)
.Certificate in Quaternary. Research in Quaternary Geology;
.Certificate in Computer Application in Data Base Manage in Archeology .MA (History and Anthropology), Ph.D (Archeology) .Commonwealth Academic Staff Fellow .MA (Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology) .Ph.D on life in the Kushan Age .MA (Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology) .Ph.D (Archaeology) During research project on Tephrochrono-logy of volcanic Ash from peninsular India 1989-1998 . Tephra or volcanic ash was discovered by him.
.Excavations at 19 sites
.Explorations -6 .Excavations at 14 sites Reinvestigations into the Kurnool Cave Complex and outside, Andhara Pradesh
.Chairman (on rotation) of Deptt. of History and Archaeology, Karnataka University.
.Director (in-charge)-internal Quality Assessment Cell (2009)
.Director (Hon.Since 2006): Museum of Archaeology
.Coordinator: UDC SAP-DRS1, Deptt. of History and Archaeology
.Director ( on deputation): IGRMS, Bhopal for 4 years
.Director ( on lien): Indian Museum, Indian Museum Kolkata for 2 years
.Director (Additional Charge) AnSI for one year
.Director in ASI for 3 years
. Joint DG ASI from Jan 08. Joint Director of Deccan College, Pune .Research articles-77
.Research projects-14
.Research Articles and
Paper-181 .Research Papers in National Journals-74 .Books-11 .Publictions-3 .Books-10
.Unpublished books-3 .Books-4
.Monographs-2
.Editorial Works-74 From the aforementioned table, ex-facie, we find that in recommending the candidature of the respondent No.6 for appointment as Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, the Search-cum-Selection Committee has not acted arbitrarily.
14. As far as the plea of applicants regarding second round of short listing done by the sub-committee is concerned, as has been noticed hereinabove, it is for the Search-cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own method and process for the assessment except where the procedure is laid down in the RRs itself. The argument that the exclusion of the candidates short listed in the first list from second short list by the sub-committee amounts to their rejection by Committee not competent to make selection to the posts, at a glance appeared to be acceptable, but on careful examination of the rival contentions, we could find that admittedly the sub-committee did not prepare the short list on the basis of its subjective satisfaction, but did so as per the laid down criteria, i.e:-
(1). Academic qualification in terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of DG, ASI
(2). Field experience in archaeological excavations, exploration, conservations and heritage management.
(3). Having administrative experience at senior level.
(4). Original research in the field of archaeology.
(5). The quality of publications in the field of archaeology.
For easy reference, the minutes of the Sub-Committee are reproduced hereinbelow:-
The meeting of the Sub-Committee consisting of the Experts viz. Prof K.Rajan and Dr A.K.Chatterjee, as constituted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was held on 28.3.2013 at 4.00 pm. The Sub-Committee, after detailed deliberations, decided on the following criteria for shortlisting the candidates on the basis of the applications received in response to the advertisement issued for the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India.
(1). Academic qualification in terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post of DG, ASI
(2). Field experience in archaeological excavations, exploration, conservations and heritage management.
(3). Having administrative experience at senior level.
(4). Original research in the field of archaeology.
(5). The quality of publications in the field of archaeology.
2. After examining the bio-data of all the candidates, the Sub Committee shortlisted the following candidates.
(1). Prof Ravinder Korisettar
(2). Dr. Rakesh Tewari
(3). Prof Kishor K.Basa
(4). Dr. B.R. Mani
(5). Dr.Vasant Shivram Shinde Besides, the Search-cum-Selection Committee met on 10.05.2013 took due note of the recommendation of Sub-Committee and concurred with the same. After the concurrence with the minutes of the Sub-Committee by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, it cannot be held that the Selection Process was left to the Sub-Committee consisting expert members only. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, also attempted to comment upon the attributes of the candidates with reference to the criteria for short listing. While doing so, he depicted the achievement of the candidates in different fields. In our considered opinion, it is not for this Tribunal to assess the performance, profile, merit or suitability of the candidates for the post in question. Once the criteria for short listing was laid down, it was not open for the sub committee also to do the short listing with reference to the performance or profile of a candidate in any particular stream. The sub committee was required to take into account the achievements of the candidates in all the areas articulated in the criteria for short listing.
15. On the plea of the applicants that the respondent No.6 did not work in the grade pay of Rs.10,000 and was ineligible for the post in question, we may refer to the decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.16/2010 (Dr.K.M.Suresh Vs. Union of India and Ors), wherein it could be viewed that there is force in the submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General that when the Clause C (i) of the schedule to the RRs specifically provided that the person possessing the qualification and experience as mentioned in column B (b) were entitled for appointment on contract basis, for a candidate who applied for appointment on contract basis, three years experience in grade pay of Rs.10,000/- was not required under contractual mode. For easy reference, para 5 to 9 of the order of Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) are reproduced hereinbelow:-
5. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the word and mentioned at the end of Clause B(a)(ii) and submits that he has applied for the post on contract basis and that Respondent No.4 was also considered and appointed as Director General on contract basis and hence, the eligibility criteria mentioned under C is applicable for both of them. Since under Clause C(i) it is mentioned as persons possessing the qualifications and experience as at (b) above and sine sub-clause (b) of Clause B is having and as prefix, the person to get himself qualify on contract basis should have possessed the qualifications mentioned in Clause B(a)(ii) also in addition to Clause B(b). As Respondent No.4 admittedly not possessing the qualification mentioned under Clause B(a)(ii), i.e. having three yers service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in posts in the Pay Band IV Rs.37400-67000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.10000/-or equivalent in the parent cadre or department , his selection for appointment is liable to be set aside. To substantiate this contention, he has drawn our attention to Col.No.12 of the bio-data of Respondent No.4 (obtained under the RTI Act) which is placed for the perusal of this Tribunal. The said column No.12 specifically shows that the Respondent No.4 was not having the required Grade Pay of Rs.10000/- for the relevant period. The learned counsel further submits that even Clause B(B)(ii) requires fifteen years experience (including research work) in one or more of the fields of Archaeology or Architecture or Conservation or History or Anthropology out of which five years experience should be in administrative matters . Respondent No. s bio-data under Column No.5 does not indicate and since how long he was in the post of Director, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal and this clearly shows that Respondent No.4 does not possess the required five years administrative experience. He further submits that as Respondent No.4 has not satisfied the requisite eligibility criteria mentioned under Clause B(a)(ii) and B (b)(ii), his selection and consequential appointment are liable to be quashed and that the Respondents are liable to conduct the selection afresh by considering his candidature and to appoint him, if he is found suitable out of such exercise.
6. Shri Mohan Parasaran, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submits that on the face of the notification itself it is clear that Clause B(b) alone is required to be fulfilled for a person seeking appointment on contract basis and that Clause B(a)(ii) is not at all applicable since Clause C(i) specifically says Persons possessing the qualifications and experience as at (b) above are eligible for appointment on contract basis. The eligibility criteria mentioned for the purpose of appointment on deputation and on contract basis are different and distinct and hence the contentions of the applicant are liable to be rejected. He further submitted that the applicant is raising various contentions about the qualifications of Respondent No.4 straightaway at the time of hearing without any supporting pleadings in the original OA or in the amended OA and hence, the same cannot be considered. Alternatively, he has also submitted that the particulars mentioned by Respondent No.4 in his bio-data relied upon by the applicant s counsel which was obtained under the RTI Act itself shows that Respondent No.4 has complied with all the requirements of the notification.
7. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that as no malafides are attributed to the selection committee, its decision cannot be interfered with and that this Tribunal cannot sit in appeal against the same decision of the Selection Committee. No violation of Rules is alleged. He further submitted that in fact, the applicant himself in Column No.8 of his bio-data says that he was having only two years of administrative experience as against the required 5 years under Clause B(b)(ii). That is why the sub-committee constituted by the said selection committee has not even short listed the name of the applicant. 8. The respondents have also placed before the Tribunal various documents pertaining to the subject selection. The learned Additional Solicitor General categorically submitted that the word and mentioned at the end of Clause B(a)(ii) cannot be read with Clause B(b) and the same is only meant for the purpose of recruitment on deputation basis and hence the contention of the applicant should be rejected and the OA may be dismissed.
9. There is force in the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the word attached to a clause above the relevant clause cannot be read into another clause which is mentioned down below, that too, when the required clause C(i) specifically says that persons possessing the qualifications and experience as at B(b)above are entitled for consideration for appointment on contract basis. The various documents placed before this Tribunal also reveals that there is no force in the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. Mr.Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for applicant in OA no. 2109/2013 made an attempt to distinguish the said order with the plea that in the said case, the notice of selection did not provide for fulfillment of qualification mentioned in part B (ii), while in the present case in the Office Memorandum dated 20.11.2012, it has been specifically provided that the persons possessing the qualification and experience specified in item B of the OM were eligible for appointment on contract basis. We find that in part-B of the OM, it is provided that the officers under the Central Government or State Government or Union Territories or Public Sector Undertaking or Universities or Recognized Research Institutions or Semi-Government or Statutory and Autonomous organizations holding analogous posts on regular basis; or with three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the post in the pay band 4, Rs.37,400-67,000 with grade pay of Rs.10000/- or equivalent in the parent cadre or department were eligible for the post. In part C of the memorandum, it is stipulated that the persons possessing the qualification and experience specified in item B above for appointment by deputation were eligible for appointment on contract basis. While dealing with the plea of applicant regarding non fulfillment of qualification and experience prescribed for appointment on deputation by respondent No. 6 who applied for the appointment on contract basis, as he did not work in the grade pay of Rs.10000/-, we need to make it clear that there is marked difference between the eligibility and qualification/ experience. When the eligibility may include the qualification and experience, the vice versa would not be correct. In other words, qualification and experience would not include the eligibility. To elucidate the propositions, we may give example of the age limit. A person who crossed the age limit for a particular post may be considered as ineligible but at the same time he may not be considered non-fulfilling the condition of qualification and experience for the post merely because he has crossed the age limit. While issuing the Office Memo dated 20.11.2012, the respondents were very much conscious of such proposition, thus when in part B (i) and (ii) they categorically mentioned about the eligibility for appointment on deputation i.e. the post required to be held by person for appointment under the mode of deputation, in part B (ii) (a) they specifically mentioned about the educational qualification and experience. Apparently when a reference to qualification and experience is made in part C of the OM, it would not include the requirement of holding the post in a particular grade. For easy reference, OM dated 20.11.2012 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Subject: Filling up the post of Director General in Archaeological Survey of India under Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/contract basis.
1. Applications are invited for appointment to the post of Director General ( w.e.f. 19.01.2013) in the revised Pay Band HAG Rs.67000- (annual increment@ 3%)-79000/-General Central Service, (Group A ) Gazetted, Ministerial in Archaeological Survey of India an attached office of the Ministry of Culture on promotion/transfer on deputation/ contract basis.
1. Eligibility:
(A). Promotion Additional Director General in the Archaeological Survey of India (Pay Band IV with the grade pay of Rs.10000/-) with three years regular service in the grade. (B). Deputation Officers under the Central Government or State Government or Union Territories or Public Sector Undertakings or Universities or Recognized Research Institutions or Semi-Government or Statutory and Autonomous organizations.
(i). Holding analogous posts on regular basis; or
(ii). With three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the post in the Pay Band 4,Rs.37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; and
(a). Possessing the following educational qualifications and experience:-
Post-graduate Degree from a recognized University or equivalent.
Fifteen years experience (including research work) in Archaeology or Architecture or Conservation or History or Anthropology out of which five years experience should be in administration matters.
Desirable: Bachelor s Degree in Management from a recognized University or equivalent.
Note. The maximum age limit for appointment by deputation shall not exceed 56 years as on the closing date for receipt of applications.
(C) On Contract basis:
Persons possessing the qualifications and experience specified in item B above for appointment by deputation.
Note 1: The maximum age limit for appointment on contract shall not exceed 67 years as on the closing date of receipt of applications.
Note 2: Appointment on contract basis shall be for a period of three years and may be extended subject to satisfactory performance and maximum age limit of seventy years.
Note 3: In case of appointment by contract basis, the terms and conditions of service of the incumbent of the post shall be as applicable to a Group A officer of the Central Government holding analogous post.
2. Applications, in duplicate, in the prescribed proforma placed below
(Annexure-1 and Annexure-II) and complete and up-to-date CR dossiers of the Officers who can be spared in the event of their selection, should reach to undersigned through proper channel within a period of 60 days from the date of this O.M. Applications received after the last date or otherwise found incomplete will not be considered and stand rejected.
Besides the criteria for determining the analogous post is laid own in OM No. 14017/27/75-Estt (D ) dated 7.03.1984. In the said OM, it is categorically provided that in order to be analogous, the scales of pay of the two posts which are being compared may not be identical. For easy reference, the relevant excerpt of the OM is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Whenever the recruitment rules for a post prescribe transfer on deputation/transfer as a method of filling up the post, it generally contains an entry in column 12 of the standard form of schedule stating inter alia that the transfer on deputation/transfer shall be made from the officers holding analogous posts under the Central/State Governments. This Department has been receiving references from various Ministries/Departments asking for the definition of the words analogous posts . It has, therefore, been considered appropriate to lay down the following criteria for determining whether the posts in question could be treated as analogous to each Government or not in so far as posts under the Central Government are concerned:-
Though the scales of pay of the two posts which are being compared may not be identical, they should be such as to be an extension of or a segment of each other, e.g. for a post carrying the pay scale of Rs.1200-1600, persons holding posts in the pay scale of Rs.1100-1600 will be eligible and for a post in the scale of Rs.1500-2000, persons working in posts carrying pay scales of Rs.1500-11800 and Rs.1800-2000.
Also in the schedule to the RRs, it has been categorically provided that the persons possessing qualification and experience specified in item 2 of column 13 (for deputation) were eligible and could be considered for appointment on contract basis. The RRs were same at the time of selection in question in OA No. 16/2010 ( Dr. K.M.Suresh Vs. Union of India and Ors) (supra) and the present selection. Thus when in the said OA it could be viewed that the qualification and experience could not include the fulfillment of the condition of the grade pay of the posts required to be held by the candidate for appointment on deputation in the case of appointment on contract basis, in the present OA, we cannot view differently. Moreover the condition of holding the analogous posts or the post in a particular pay scale cannot be relevant at all for appointment on contract basis, for the simple reason, that for contractual appointment the person need not be incumbent of any post, while for appointment on deputation, he needs to hold a post. In other words, there cannot be any concept of deputation where the concerned employee is not occupying any post in some organization at the time of submitting their candidature, while for appointment on contract basis the candidate need not hold any post. In view of the aforementioned, we do not find any force in the plea of the applicants that having not worked in the grade pay of Rs.10000/-, respondent no. 6 was not eligible for his appointment on contract basis. It is the categorical stand of the respondent No. 1 and 2 in the written submission that Dr.Rakesh Tewari, respondent no. 6 applied for his appointment to the post in question on contract basis and not on deputation basis. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the written submission is extracted hereinbelow:-
III. Eligibility of Dr.Rakesh Tewari with respect to the pay band
i. During the course of arguments a contention was raised by the Applicants that the one of the short listed candidates Dr.Rakesh Tewari is not eligible for the post of DG, ASI as he does not fulfill the criteria of pay band of Rs.10000 as given in the recruitment rules. It is submitted that the said criteria is for applicants who apply for the post on deputation basis and not for appointments to be made on Contract basis. The eligibility to apply on Contract basis as reflected in Column 12 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules is:
III. ON CONTRACT BASIS
Persons possessing qualifications and experience specified in Item II above .
ii. It is submitted that the qualifications and experience for applying on contract basis is a reference to only the educational qualifications and experience as specified for appointment to be made on Deputation and does not include the requirements of being in the pay band of Rs.10000/-. The language of the Recruitment Rules is unambiguous with respect to the requirements for applying on contract basis and the contention of the Applicants is an unreasonable interpretation of the Recruitment Rules as well as the advertisement.
iii. In OA No.16/2010 titled Dr. K.M.Suresh V. UPI and Ors a similar contention as raised by the Applicant which was rejected by a Division Bench of this Hon ble Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2011. A copy of the order dated 3.6.2011 has been supplied to the Bench during the course of arguments and is also been annexed as Annexure-WZ/1.
Ergo, we do not find any force in the plea of applicants that respondent no. 6 was not eligible for his appointment to the post in question. It was also the submission of applicants that the contractual appointment to the post in question could be resorted only if the candidates were not available for appointment by way of promotion and on deputation. The plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the applicants themselves applied for their appointment to the post on contract basis only and their candidature was also considered by the selection committee. Had the appointment by way of contract was to be resorted to only on failure of the other two modes of selection i.e. promotion/deputation, the applicants themselves could not have been considered for the post and in such event they might have no locus standi to question the selection of respondent No. 6. We find from column 12 of the schedule to RRs that the appointment to the post of DG, ASI, needs to be made by promotion/deputation/contract basis. Thus, the method as suggested in the schedule is the composite method only. In other words, all the candidates eligible under different modes were to be considered for appointment to the post simultaneously. Besides the expression solidus used in column 12 of the schedule stands either for and/or and in no circumstances failing which. In this regard, we accept the written submission put forth by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General. Relevant excerpt of the submission is extracted hereinbelow:-
B. Interpretation of the Solidus
i. It is submitted that grammatically the solidus is most commonly used as the word substitute for or which indicates that a choice, often mutually exclusive, is present. In the present case interpreting the solidus as failing which is against the basic rules of interpretation. The Slash referred to in the Column 11 implies an OR which is disjunctive and given a mutually exclusive choice between the options of recruitment i.e., promotion or deputation or on contract basis . Reference in this regard may be made to R.S. Nayak v. A.R.Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183) (para 45).
Even otherwise also once in the Memo dated 20.11.2012 it is specifically mentioned that the post was to be filled up on promotion/transfer on deputation/contract basis i.e. by way of composite methods and knowing fully well about it, the applicants applied for the post, thus being unsuccessful in the selection, they cannot now question the method of selection.
16. In Dr. G.Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Ors ( 1976) 3 SCC 585), Hon ble Supreme Court viewed that the unsuccessful party after submitting to the jurisdiction of the Selection Board cannot be allowed to raise the plea of bias. For easy reference, para 7 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
7. The High Court also held that the appellant having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, he could not be permitted to turn round and denouce the constitution of the committee.
17. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors Vs. Dr.B.S.Mahajan and Ors (1990 (1) SCC 305), Hon ble Supreme Court viewed that whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject and the Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. For easy reference, para 12 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
12. It will thus appear that apart from the. fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its Jurisdiction.
In the present case, though one member of the expert committee was not present and the other one worked in the grade of Under Secretary, as has been discussed hereinabove, we do not find such absence and the grade of the members of expert Committee as material irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee.
18. In UPSC Vs. K. Rajaiah and Ors (2005) 10 SCC 15), Honble Supreme Court viewed that it is not incumbent upon the Selection Committee to record reasons for its recommendations. For easy reference para 9 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 1806]. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed.
"even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an Examiner to record reasons for the selection or non selection of the person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Das Vs. Union of India [1986 (Suppl.) SCC 617] at Page 633."
In the next paragraph, the learned Judges indicated as to what is expected of the Selection Committee, in the following words:
"we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administration action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary"
That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so called down gradation of the 1st respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term 'down gradation' is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and 'unfit' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-94. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision.
19. In Jagat Bandhu Chakraborty vs. G.C.Roy and Ors ( 2000) 9 SCC 739), Hon ble Supreme Court viewed that it is for the experts to determine whether the requisite experience was possessed by the appellant or not, the view of the Tribunal that he did not possess such experience could not be sustained. For easy references, para 5 and 6 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
5. The other ground which has been urged by Respondents 1 and 2 relates to the experience of the appellant in the area of analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. The appellant has stated that throughout his entire career he has been involved in the research and standardisation work relating to food and has numerous publications to his credit which are listed at Annexure '8' in his affidavit. The appellant was directly involved in the analysis of pesticides residual in food products and has also dealt with other aspects of food analysis. Looking to the fact that from 1974 onwards the appellant had worked in the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta, it was for the Expert Committee to evaluate the relevant experience of the appellant in order to ascertain whether from 1974 to 1987 he had at least 5 years' experience in the analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. We fail to see on what basis the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the appellant had not dealt with the analysis of organic material or that the appellant was only concerned with pesticides. The appellant has throughout worked in the Central Food Laboratory and his direct interest has been in analysing in food particles any pesticides residue. It was basically for the experts to determine whether the requisite experience was possessed by the appellant or not. The finding, therefore, of the Tribunal that the appellant did not possess such experience does not appear to be sustainable. In fact from the list of research publications of the appellant it can be seen that these involve analysis of organic matter.
6. In the premises, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the selection of the appellant to the post of Chief Technical Officer. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside. OA No. 1814 of 1987 filed by Respondents 1 and 2 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi is dismissed.
20. In Union of India and Anr Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Anr ( 2002) 1 SCC 188), it has been held thus:
6. And, thereafter, the tribunal referred to the transcript of tape indicating that during the course of viva voce test respondent no. 3 called his secretary and told him that the applicant had only been in vigilance department and had no exposure to the field work and, therefore, should be posted in the first as inspector of works. Thus, the association of respondent no. 2 and his secretary was taken by the tribunal to be sufficient to vitiate the interview.
7. In the first place, the tribunal should have given a definite finding as to whether Shri Sanjai Mittal was related to respondent no. 2 or not and, if that ground failed, it should not have allowed respondent no. 1 to change his stance that somehow and in some other manner Shri Sanjai Mittal is connected with respondent no. 2. The tribunal should not have proceeded on line proving morale indicated in one of Aescop's Fable of the lamb and the wolf when the complaint was that the stream was being polluted by the lamb and if not by it, by any of its forefathers. The approach of the tribunal in this regard is by no reason good enough to chastise the said respondent no. 2 and condemn the proceedings conducted not only by him but other officers who are of equivalent rank. There is always a presumption in favour of administration that it exercises powers in good faith and for public benefit. The burden is on the individual to produce sufficient material to suggest of the mala fides of the concerned authority and it is not easy to discharge the same.
8. The tribunal considered the tape recorded part of the interview and noticed as follows:
"THERE is nothing wrong about the questions which sought to elicit the applicant's experience as the same is very relevant to his ability or the lack of it to handle work situations in the higher post. It is, however, the manner in which disparaging remarks were made about the applicant's lack of field experience which tends to indicate that the purpose of the question was not merely to elicit facts. That part, the very fact that the secretary was called in during the interview he was told about lack of field experience on the part of the applicant, is quite strange and cannot but give an impression that the chairman of the board was not making an objective assessment of the applicant's mental attributes which are really the purpose of the viva voce test."
On this basis, the tribunal concluded that it was highly probable that the secretary could have influenced that chairman of the selection committee against respondent no. 1. This approach of the tribunal is once again plainly fallacious. Firstly, the allegation was that the chairman was biased because of his close relationship with Shri Sanjai Mittal and thereafter the proximity of the secretary was considered sufficient to influence the chairman of the selection committee. If this kind of approach is allowed, no administration can be safe and, therefore, we do not appreciate the manner in which the tribunal proceeded in this matter.
21. In UPSC Vs. L.P.Tiwari and Ors ( 2006) 12 SCC 317), it could be viewed that the Tribunal committed an error in relying on annual confidential report of even previous years and widening the scope of selection. In the said case, their Lordships viewed that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. For easy reference, para 12 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
12. It is now more or less well-settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. Such view was reiterated as late as in 2005 in the case of U.P.S.C. vs. K. Rajaiah and Ors., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 15, wherein the aforesaid Rules for the purpose of promotion to the I.P.S. Cadre was under consideration. Apart from the above, at no stage of the proceedings, either before the Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court, has any allegation of mala fides been raised against the Selection Committee and the only grievance is that the Selection Committee erred while making assessment of the comparative merits of the respective candidates. While concluding his submissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that the direction given by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since the Regulations provided for selection to be made not by a Departmental Promotion Committee but by a Selection Committee constituted as per the Regulations.
22. In Basavaiah (Dr) Dr.H.L.Ramesh and Ors ( 2010 (8) SCC 372), Hon ble Supreme Court viewed as under:-
38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.
23. In Shashi Manhas (Dr) Vs University of Jammu and Ors ( 2005 (2) JKJ 70 decided on 17.09.2004), the High Court of JandK viewed that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee. In the said case, it has also been held that having participated in the selection the petitioner could not have questioned the same. Para 7 and 9 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
7. In view of the reply filed by the respondents that the experts from broader discipline of Home Science having expertise in the allied subjects were on the Selection Committee and the fact that the writ Court cannot venture into this field, there is no scope for judicial review. It is for the experts to decide expertise of a Selector for a particular post. The Court has neither any expertise/knowledge nor method to determine the same. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is more meritorious having served with the University on ad hoc basis for a period of one year and has vast experience whereas respondent No. 4 was the student of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that inter-se merit of the candidate is again a matter, which is within the exclusively domain of the experts and selectors. It is a settled law that the writ court, cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of selection body. The power of judicial review is confined only to the manner and method of making selection and/or violation of any statutory provisions.
xxx xxx
9. Apart from the above, it is admitted case that the petitioner has participated in the selection process. Though it is stated in the writ petition that at the time of participation in the interview the petitioner had no knowledge of the experts and it is only subsequently she came to know about the experts and discipline to which they belong. It is also stated that since she was a Ph.D. student, she waited for some time and then challenged the impugned order. Admittedly, no objection was raised whatsoever by way of representation immediately after selection. In the present days of competition and necessity of job, challenge to the selection, is a common phenomena. The present case is no exception. Unsuccessful candidates make every attempt to assail selection on permissible or even impermissible grounds. The interference in the selection made by the experts should be resorted to only on valid ground and established facts and not at the mere asking of the petitioner.
In the present case, I do not find that there is any valid basis for interference in selection of respondent No.4. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
24. In view of the aforementioned, we are not inclined to grant the relief prayed by the applicants. Ergo, the OAs are dismissed. No cost.