Judgment:
ORDER
Tirath S. Thakur, J.
1. Selection and consequent appointment of the 6th Respondent as Lecturer in Sanskrit in the Bangalore University is what has been called in question in this writ petition. The grounds urged are not un-common and are founded an allegations of malice made against one of the Members of the Board of Appointments and the so called farcical nature of the interview conducted by it. A few facts in the background need be stated first.
2. By a Notification dated 12th October, 1993 applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment against among others the post of a lecturer in Sanskrit in the general merit category. Sometime later came a second Notification dated 17th January, 1994 whereby the post aforesaid was shifted to a reserved category meant for scheduled caste candidates. Aggrieved, by this Reservation the petitioner filed writ petition No. 7670/1994, which succeeded and was allowed by a single Judge of this Court by an order dated 9th November, 1994 with the direction that University shall proceed to make selections against the vacancy in question in the open merit category. A Contempt Petition was than filed by the petitioner in C.C.C.No. 2231/1995 alleging disobedience of the aforesaid order of this Court. This petition coming up before a Division Bench of this Court on 6th July, 1995 and was disposed of with a direction to the University to complete the process of selection within a period of six weeks from the said date. Consequently, by an order dated 7th September, 1995, the 6th Respondent was appointed against the vacancy in question. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition assailing the process of selection as also the appointment order in which the same has culminated.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the process of selection was vitiated on account of the malice of the 5th Respondent who was a member of the Board of appointments. The argument is entirely based on an incident narrated in para-5 of the writ petition, according to which the 5th Respondent, who also happens to be the head of the department of Sanskrit is said to have called the petitioner on the first of January 1995 and threatened him with dire consequences for having approached this Court by filing the writ petition mentioned earlier. According to the petitioner he was told by the 5th Respondent that having approached the High Court for redress he cannot expect to be selected. This incident argued Mr. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner constituted a ground safe enough to be made a basis for holding the entire selection to be vitiated by mala fides. I however find it difficult to subscribe to this view. The reasons are not far to seek. In the first place the allegation of mala fides is made only against the 5th Respondent and not against any other member of the Board of appointments comprising the Vice-Chancellor and two experts from outside the University. In the circumstances it is difficult to hold that the process of selection was so grossly interfered with as to vitiate the end result by making the process of evaluation of merit by the other, members of the Board notwithstanding their independent and eminent position suspect. Secondly because the petitioner having been threatened as alleged by him did not either protest or otherwise express any apprehension of being given an unfair treatment in the course of selection. On the other hand, he participated in the selection process without any demur and thereby took a chance to get a favourable verdict from the Board. It was only after the petitioner came to know that he had lost the race in favour of the 6th Respondent that he for the first time came up with the version of the 5th Respondent having threatened him with dire consequences. Having kept quiet and taken a chance at the selection without any protest or reservation the petitioner is stopped from turning round and questioning the process of selection after he has known the result thereof. The explanation given by the petitioner for his silence in the matter is that he was hoping that the 5th Respondent had made the offensive statement only in a fit of anger and not with a view to victimise him. This explanation does not commend itself to me, which appears to be only a half-hearted attempt to somehow wriggle out of the consequences of his silence in the matter. Thirdly because the 5th Respondent, was not one of the Respondents, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. He had therefore no real reason to feel offended by the filing of the writ petition particularly when the writ petition did not allege any malafides or abuse of authority by the said Respondent. And lastly because the 5th Respondent has stoutly denied the allegation made by the petitioner and the incident alleged to have taken place. He states that he had no reason or occasion to feel aggrieved by the institution of the writ proceedings in this court nor did he ever threaten the petitioner with dire consequences or express any displeasure over his having approached the Court. In the absence of any material to show that the incident alleged by the petitioner did actually take place and in view of the improbability of any such incident having taken place in the context of the attendant facts and circumstances, the challenge to the selection or the appointment on the ground of mala fides must fail.
4. Mr. Reddy, next argued that the interview conducted by the Board of appointments was a farce, in that, all that the petitioner was asked was as to when had he passed his M.A. Examination and what he was doing presently. Nothing else transpired between the petitioner and the members of the Board of appointment, according to Mr. Reddy, the entire exercise being over within two minutes or so. He further contended that no objective assessment of the relative merit of the candidates was made by the Board of appointment, thereby vitiating the entire process and rendering illegal the end result.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made in the writ petition as regards the interview and the questions asked from the candidates have been specifically and stoutly denied. It is stated that the members of the Board including the subject experts asked a number of question from the candidates including the petitioner with a view to assess their aptitude, general knowledge and personality besides their grasp and command over the subject. It is further stated that even though no written questions were given to the candidates at the interview nor were the answers given by them recorded as is generally known to regular written examination, yet the interview deliberations and discussions held by the Board sufficiently helped the members in assessing the merit of the candidates interviewed, thereby giving rise to a consensus as to the best candidate available. It is further pointed our that 6th respondent who was eligible for appointment as per the criterion set out in the notification issued by the University and the UGC guidelines was selected for appointment as the best candidate available. It is stated that 6th respondent having passed his M.Phil., in the year 1981 was exempt from passing the NET, while the petitioner, it is urged, was not eligible as he had not passed the NET conducted by the UGC as on the last date fixed for submission of the applications. A comparison has been drawn between the academic merit of the petitioner and the 6th respondent, in order to show that the petitioner was in no way better in merit than the selected candidate.
6. In the light of the denial on the part of the respondents supported by the affidavit of the Registrar of the respondent-University, who was admittedly present throughout the interview proceedings in his capacity as the Secretary of the Board of appointments, it is difficult to accept the version of the petitioner that the interview was over within less than 2 minutes or so. The allegation that the members of the Board of appointment did not ask the petitioner any question except the two referred to earlier also does not appear to be reasonably probable so as to merit acceptance. This is particularly so when there is no allegation of malafides against the subject experts who are admittedly from outside the respondent-University. To suggest that experts on the subject including the Vice-Chancellor against whom also there are no allegations of malafides acted like dumb spectators and deliberately converted the entire process of selection or the interview to a farce is a view to which I cannot subscribe. In the very nature of things, the subject experts who are independent individuals of eminence from outside the University can be presumed to have acted fairly and objectively in the discharge of their duties as experts and members of the Board of appointments. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this part of the petitioner's case also.
7. Equally untenable appears to me the other limb of the petitioner's grievance viz., the alleged absence of any objective assessment of the relative merit of the candidates. It is not the case of the petitioner that the process of evaluation of the merit of the candidates was required to be undertaken by adoption of any particular or prescribed method. In the circumstances, all that is required to be seen is whether there was fairness in the process of selection. It is well settled that in the process of judicial review of an administrative or quasi-judicial action all that is required to be seen is whether the decision making process was fair. In all such situations so long as there is nothing to indicate that the process of selection was vitiated by any extraneous consideration, malice or any irregularity of a gross nature, which could deprive the process of its fairness and objectivity there is no room for the Court to interfere. The very fact therefore that the process of evaluation of the merit of the candidates who appeared for interview did not find expression in the form of marks allotted to each one of those who were interviewed as is done in the case of written or other examinations cannot invalidate the selection. In the matters of selection for post of higher responsibility particularly where the academic knowledge of those appearing for interview has to be judged by academic bodies of a very high calibre, it is not possible to insist upon award of marks or recording of questions and the answers given. So long as those who discharge the duties as members of the Board are persons of eminence and proven impartiality, their judgment as to the suitability of candidates for appointments has to be respected. Seen in that back drop, it is not possible to interfere with the selection in the present case simply because the record does not disclose the questions that were asked or the answers that were given by the candidates nor the marks allotted to them.
8. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.