Gauhati High Court
WA/417/2010 of MR. TIMOTHY HANSE DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM and 12 ORS, on 23 December 2010
BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6115/2010. The Assam Public Service Commission (for short, �APSC �) invited
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WA 417/2010BEFOREHON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKURHON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY
The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6115/2010.
The Assam Public Service Commission (for short, APSC ) invited applications forselection to the post of Director of Agriculture under the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam.
We are not concerned with the scale of pay or the age of the candidates. We are only concerned with the educational qualification, which reads as follows:
— (1)First Class or High Second Class Degree in Agriculture or First Class orHigh Second Class Honours or Master Degree in a Subject basic to Agricultural Science such as Botany, Chemistry etc.
(2) Experience in Research Extension work or Teaching for 10 years.
(3) Experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years.(4)The following qualifications will be treated as desirable additional qualifications:
(a) Post Graduate Degree or Ph. D. or D. Sc. in any of the basic Agricultural Sciences like Agronomy, Agriculture, Extension, Horticulture, Botany, Agricultural Botany and Agricultural Chemistry etc.
(b) Outstanding Research Training or Extension as evidenced by Published Paper
(c) Experience in a top position in the field of Agricultural Extension.(d)Intimate Knowledge of problems of Indian Agriculture particularly with reference to any of the rice growing regions of India. —
Learned counsel for the appellant rested his case only on Item No.3 i.e. Experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years. The appellant and respondent No.7 were among the applicants for the post and theselection was conducted by the APSC. By its letter dated 29th October, 2010, the Government of Assam was informed that 8 (eight) candidates were interviewed with the help of an expert deputed by the Government of Assam. On the basis of theinterviews, the APSC recommended the name of respondent No.7 for appointment/selection as Director of Agriculture.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition in which the sole contention urged was that respondent No.7 did not have the experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of an expert selection committee and if, on the basis ofthe materials on record the Selection Committee came to the conclusion that respondent No.7 met the qualifications, the Court could not disagree unless of course the conclusion of the expert selection committee was perverse. We are in agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
It must be noted that the advertisement mentions experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years — but what is a Senior post that has not been mentioned nor experience in administration — has been specified.
Respondent No.7, from the record, seems to had a long career starting from some time 1980 onwards and has held various posts including that of Senior ScientificAssistant, Agriculture Extension Officer, SMS (Agro), Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor.
The Selection Committee, which includes an expert from the Government, would have surely looked into the materials for the purposes of determining whether respondent No.7 met the qualifications laid down in the advertisement.
It must also be noted that the State did not file any affidavit in response to the writ petition but produced the original official records, which were apparently perused by the learned Single Judge.
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is not possible for the Court to sit in appeal over the decision of a Selection Committee, which included an expert from the Government. This view is in conformity with several decisions of the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.