I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2860 of 1984 and O.A. No. 30(C) of 1998 by which both the OAs were dismissed.
2. In fact the Tribunal has decided 11 Original Applications in a batch out of which one O.A. No. 363(C) of 1994 filed by Dr.Sebak Tripathy was allowed and remaining OAs were dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the post of Professor of Education is a Class-I post of Orissa Education Service within the purview of the Orissa Public Service Commission ( in short, 'O.P.S.C.'), recruitment for which is made under the Orissa Education Service (Professors' Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990. The Government decided to fill up the posts of Professor under Orissa Education Service in different disciplines including Education. On requisition by the Government an advertisement was issued by the O.P.S.C. as advertisement No. 26/91-92 to fill up posts of Professor in 12 disciplines including the five posts of Professor in Education in different institutions. The minimum educational qualification including experience was shown in paragraph-7 of the advertisement as under:
A candidate should have at least a Ph.D. degree in the concerned discipline either from an Indian University or from a foreign University recognized equivalent thereto and published research work of excellence. Candidates should possess at least ten years experience in research and or teaching in the concerned discipline or related area at the degree of post-graduate level in any Indian University or a College affiliated to such University or a research Institution of repute or a foreign University and should have guided adequate number of scholars in doctoral research.
4. In the note below paragraph-10 of the advertisement, it was mentioned that true copies of the experience certificate(s) from competent authority as required under paragraph-7 of the advertisement and the certificates showing academic reputation and significant contribution to teaching/research on concerned discipline should be submitted.
6. (Sic) It may be noticed that the minimum requisite qualification mentioned in paragraph-7 as quoted above were in consonance with Rule 5 of the Orissa Education Service (Professors' Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990 herein after referred to as the 'Rules, 1990.'
7. In response to the above advertisement besides others the applicants before the Tribunal in all the Original Applications submitted their applications. In the selection, Dr. Sribatsa Lanchhan Jena (O.P.3), Dr. Sebak Tripathy (O.P.4) and one Dr. Surendra Mohan Pani (O.P.5) were selected. However, at first, Dr. Dhruba Charan Mishra and Dr. Sebak Tripathy were not called for interview. They filed Original Applications bearing Nos. 289 of 1994 and 363(C) of 1994 and by way of interim order, the Tribunal directed to allow them to appear at the interview in February, 1994. Dr. Sebak Tripathy was selected ultimately amongst others selected persons whose names have been mentioned above. In O.A. No. 289 of 1994, a direction was given thereafter not to publish the result of Dhruba Charan Mishra without leave of the Tribunal. Consequently, his result was withheld by the O.P.S.C. During pendency of the above two Original Applications, the persons who were not selected including the petitioners had filed the Original Applications as mentioned above challenging the selection in question on the following amongst other grounds:
1. The O.P.S.C. did not publish the advertisement in terms of the Rules, 1990.
2. There was violation of Rule 7(3) of the Rules inasmuch as one of the expert members named Dr. K.C. Panda was not competent to be a member of the Selection Board. Further the appoint in O.A. No. 2860 of 1994 has contended that Dr. K.C. Panda was biased against him as there was previous enmity between them.
3. The short listing process adopted by the O.P.S.C. was improper for which the applicant in O.A. No. 168(C) of 1995 Dr. K.C. Mohanty was not called for the interview, though he was possessing all the requisite qualifications and eligibility.
4. Selection of Dr. Sebak Tripathy was illegal inasmuch as he did not possess one of the requisite qualifications by the cut-off date, that is 24.4.1992, such as giving guidance to research scholars for Ph.D.
5. The Orissa Public Service Commission did not send the names of all those persons who were interviewed and placed in the select list in order of merit.
8. The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that since the petitioners appeared in the interview they cannot challenge the process of selection after appearance in the interview and regarding Dr. K.C. Panda, the member of Selection Board, it has been observed by the Tribunal that it was found from a catena of documents that Dr. K.C. Panda was holding the post of Professor in Education for a period of 20 years in Mysore University and Utkal University and guided more than 40 candidates in the field of research in Education and his competency as an Expert in Education could not be questioned. With regard to the advertisement in question, the Tribunal has found that there was absolutely nothing in the advertisement, which is contrary to the Rules 1990, and nothing has been pointed out by any of the applicants before it that the advertisement had been published in contravention of any of the Rules. It was further found by the Tribunal that short listing was made on the basis of career marking and this method of short listing was neither invalid nor unconstitutional. Regarding the allegation that Dr. Sebak Tripathy did not produce the relevant documents and certificates in support of his claim that he has guided some research scholars on the basis of which initially his application was rejected, the Tribunal observed that it was no where stated in the counter affidavit of the O.P.S.C. that the Board or the O.P.S.C. did not verify the original documents and certificates produced by Dr. Sebak Tripathy at the time of conducting the interview or selection. On the contrary, the fact that he was finally selected by itself raises the conclusive presumption that the O.P.S.C, being fully satisfied that he possessed all the eligibility criteria including guidance to Ph.D. scholars deserved to be selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Professor and in view of this the Tribunal found that the allegation that Dr. Sebak Tripathy did not possess the eligibility qualification was not correct. In respect of the contention that the Commission having not forwarded the entire select list, there was violation of Rule 7, the Tribunal has opined that the Commission did not send the names of all the candidates who were interviewed and listed on merit. But the same was a mere irregularity but not violation of any Rules. It was always open to the Government to call for their names form the O.P.S.C. but that could not be held to be a ground for quashing of the selection.
9. The main emphasis has been given by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the question that the Opposite Party No. 4 did not furnish any certificate or documents as regards his experience in research and the fact that he has guided adequate number of scholars in doctoral research. We have found from the perusal of the record that along with the application form Opposite Party No. 4 had submitted certificates including the certificate regarding the project proposal for research grants, certificate regarding research scholars and research guidance, experience certificate in teaching in degree, honours, post graduate and M. Phil classes of 11 years 5 months 5 days and his personal and academic data and in respect of research programme. The details of the research programme along with the application form is given below:
Research Studies conducted:
1. Factor analysis of Creativity, A Study into the nature of creativity of Xth Grade High School students of Orissa.
2. Construction of a Test Creativity.
3. Construction and standardization of a test of creativity in Oriya.
10. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners had raised contentions that Dr. Sebak Tripathy did not fulfil the minimum criteria laid down in the advertisement regarding research studies. Their further contention was that the experts, namely, Dr. K.C. Panda and Dr. S.C. Sharma who were associated as the experts on the Board were not competent. The Tribunal turned down their contentions mentioning that Dr. K.C. Panda was holding the post of Professor in Education for a period of twenty years in Mysore University and Utkal University and guided more than forty candidates in the field of Research in Education and Dr. Sharma's bio-data was produced from which it was clear that he was quite competent to be an expert. At the first instance, Dr. Sebak Tripathy was not called for interview by the OPSC on the technical ground of non-enclosing research publications with his application form. However, he had submitted his bio-data enclosed to the original application but due to interim order of the Tribunal, he was allowed to appear before the Selection Board where he produced all the publications, relevant documents regarding his research works and guidance to the satisfaction of the selection committee as a result of which he was selected by the Board. The Tribunal also found that he possessed all the eligibility criteria deserved to be selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Professor and held that the allegation that Dr. Sebak Tripathy did not possess the eligibility qualification was not correct.
11. The Tribunal also held that it cannot sit in appeal against the decision of the OPSC and it can interfere only if it is found that the process of selection was vitiated by any perverse or malafide action. But it did not find any such illegality in the selection and the selection was done perfectly.
12. Therefore, we have not found any illegality, impropriety or manifest error of law in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The recommendation was made by the Commission to the State Government and it was the State Government which accepted the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. It is true that the Tribunal or the Court cannot sit as the appellate authority over the selection held and recommendations made by the Public Service Commission.
13. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions lack merits and, therefore, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.
A.K. Samantaray, J.
14. I agree.