RAMESH RANGANATHAN,CJ. - (1.) The validity of the selection process, undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.08.2017, is under challenge both in WPSB No. 78 of 2019 and WPSB No. 82 of 2019. The petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2019, a Ph.D with nearly eight years of service as an Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting), applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the 'Commission') dated 04.08.2017, on 12.08.2017. A screening test was held on 06.05.2018, the results of which were declared on 21.08.2018. The petitioner was among the candidates successful in the screening test, and was therefore called to appear before the interview board constituted by the Commission on 28.12.2018. The results of the interview were declared by the Commission on 04.01.2019, and respondent nos.6 to 9 were declared to have been selected ie two in the General category (ie respondent nos.7 and 9), and two in the Scheduled Castes category (ie respondent nos.6 and 8). The petitioner belongs to the General category. In the interview, respondent no.7 secured 74 marks and respondent no.9 secured 72 marks, whereas the petitioner was awarded only 57 marks resulting in her not being selected to the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 82 of 2019, a member of the Scheduled Tribes, is a Post Graduate in Commerce and has passed in NET and USET. She is teaching as a guest faculty lecturer, in Pt. Lalit Mohan Sharma Government P.G. College, Rishikesh, Dehradun since 20.11.2017, in the subject of Commerce, and takes up both undergraduate and Post-Graduate classes in commerce. She appeared for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.08.2017 in which category five posts were reserved in favour of the Scheduled Tribes. Among the three candidates, selected under the Scheduled Tribes category, is the fifth respondent. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 (who belong to the Other Backward Classes and General Category) impleaded themselves in the writ petition contending that, since the main challenge in the writ petition is regarding the failure of the Public Service Commission to ensure the presence of a member of the Scheduled Tribes in the Interview Board, while selecting candidates to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) reserved in favour of the Scheduled Tribes, there is no justification in the selection and appointment of others, who are not members of the Scheduled Tribes, being stayed.
(2.) Elaborate submissions were made by Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019, Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 201, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission, Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 9 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019, and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 2019. It is convenient to examine the rival submissions, urged by learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel on either side, under different heads. I. Improper Assessment Of Merit :
(3.) In the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2019, the petitioner has detailed her achievements, both academic and otherwise, to contend that she was more meritorious than respondent nos. 6 to 9 in all aspects. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the entire selection process stood vitiated as the petitioner's merit was ignored, and the Interview Committee failed to properly assess the relative merits of the candidates called for interview. While fairly stating that this Court would not take upon itself the task of making a comparative assessment of the relative merits of the eligible candidates, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Commission was obligated to show, at least prima facie, that a proper assessment of the relative merits, of the candidates called for interview, was undertaken; despite the petitioner having detailed her achievements in the writ affidavit, and though she had pointed out therein that her academic and other qualifications were far superior to that of respondent nos.6 to 9, the counter- affidavit filed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission does not state why the petitioner was found less meritorious than respondent nos.6 to 9; and this clearly shows that the interview board had failed to make a proper assessment of the relative merits of the candidates called for interview, which would necessitate the entire selection process being declared as vitiated.;