The Delhi High Court Wednesday set aside a single judge's order which had quashed the process of appointing the principal of Delhi University's Hindu College.
A bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta said it was of the view that there was no basis on which the single judge could have come to a conclusion as regards mala fides, either in law or in fact.
The division bench's judgment came on a plea filed by Hindu College challenging the single judge's Nov 27 last year which had allowed the petition of a professor and had asked the screening committee of the college to undertake a fresh exercise to appoint the principal.
The single judge's order had come on the plea of professor Ratan Lal whose candidature was discarded, on the ground that he was found ineligible, and whose RTI application seeking to know the selection process was repeatedly rebuffed by the college authorities.
The division bench did not agree with the single judge's direction that since the candidate (Lal) belonged to the Scheduled Castes category, in the selection committee the representative of said category shall be ensured.
"The single judge erred in holding that the person so nominated has to belong to the very category to which the candidate belongs. For instance, if the applicant is a person with disability of a particular kind, like for example, hearing impairment, it is not necessary that the said academician has to himself or herself be hearing impaired. Such an interpretation would make the provision unworkable," it said.
The court said it is sufficient that the academician nominated in the selection committee belongs to anyone of the categories (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Persons with Disability).
"In the instant case, the above requirement stood satisfied. In other words, there was no error committed in the constitution of the screening committee. The court is therefore unable to agree with the single judge even on this score," it said.
The court also refused to accept the contention of Lal that his Academic Performance Indicators (API) score awarded by the selection committee was vitiated by arbitrariness or malice.
It said he has failed to lay any factual or legal foundation for such a claim. If indeed the procedure followed is not shown to be vitiated by any illegality, it is pointless to require the exercise to be repeated.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
