R. M. Sahai, K. P. Singh, JJ. - (1.) Ad hoc lecturers in Political Science, Commerce and Medieval History of Ishwar Saran Degree College are aggrieved by Selection made by Commission constituted under U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. They were appointed under Removal of Difficulties Orders. Although initially they claimed to have been regularised under U.P. Ordinance No. 14 of 1985 but the attack during arguments has been on the procedure adopted by the Commission. Admittedly petitioners had also applied but petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7281 of 1986 and petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ No. 18082 of 1985 were not issued any interview letters whereas petitioner No. 2 although called was not selected. What is urged is that exclusion of petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 was arbitrary and illegal. It is claimed that petitioners were entitled to relaxation in their qualification in view of research work done by them. This could be done by experts and not the ministerial staff of the Commission. Therefore, screening out of petitioners without issuing letter of interview and application of mind by those who could judge merit of their work was improper. In respect of petitioner No. 2 it is urged that the Board selected persons with lesser merit.
(2.) Since plea of arbitrariness was raised we directed learned counsel for Commission to produce the record. It has been perused by us. Learned counsel explained the procedure also of screening out of application and evaluation of merit by the Board. From the guidelines prepared for screening out applications it appeared that the Commission has fixed the number of candidates to be called for interview depending on number of vacancies. It is more if the posts are less. It goes on decreasing as the posts increase. For instance if there is one post they normally call eight candidates but if it is forty then the number may be four times only. Usually the applications are much in excess of the number to be called for interview. Therefore, detail guideline has been prepared for classification depending on academic qualifications of a candidate. For instance a candidate with doctorate and three first-class is in category one and doctorate with two first-class in category two. There are thirteen such categories. Every candidate who falling first five has no difficulty. Out of the remaining the guidelines lay down in detail how and when a candidate shall be called. It is in this category that relaxation etc. Is granted. And if someone by this process becomes eligible then subject to limitation of candidates to be called he is also issued letter of interview. Category thirteen is of those candidates who are ineligible. But even there exception is made in favour of those who have put in five years' substantive service. Since these guidelines have been prepared by the Commission in keeping with provision of Act and appear to be reasonable and fair the screening out of petitioners in accordance with it cannot be said either to be arbitrary or illegal. The argument that it should have been done by the Commission is absolutely without merit. If by Board the learned counsel means the members who assemble for interviewing candidates then it is asking for impossible. Screening out has to be done by Commission which has, as stated earlier, in exercise of power conferred on it by the Statute has framed the guidelines which are not only detailed and thorough but rule out any possibility of arbitrariness.
(3.) Even the procedure for selection adopted by the Board does not admit of any arbitrariness. Every Board consists of two to three experts and similar number of its members. Every expert and member is, allotted equal number of marks. If the margin of difference in the marks allotted between members of one group, say expert group, is more than certain fixed figure then it is normalised by a detailed procedure. The marks thus obtained are totalled with marks awarded by either group, say Board group; and the gross total is the merit of a candidate. That determines his evaluation both for selection and even option of posting, placing of petitioner No. 2 in evaluation thus done did not entitle him for selection. He is much below than those who have been selected. Claim of petitioners therefore that they have been discriminated or are victim of arbitrariness is misconceived.;