Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Reassess Interview Marks Or Direct Appointment Of Primary School Teacher Nearly Eleven Years After Merit List Declaration: Gujarat High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi, holding that a civil court lacks jurisdiction to reassess marks awarded by an interview committee or issue directions for appointment to a public post, set aside concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that had ordered the appointment of a primary school teacher nearly eleven years after the declaration of the merit list. The dispute arose from a recruitment process for primary teachers, wherein the plaintiff, having secured fewer marks than the last selected candidate, approached the civil court alleging irregularities in the selection procedure. The court found the suit also barred by limitation.
The plaintiff, a candidate for the post of Primary Teacher, filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the District Primary Education Officer and District Education Committee, Amreli. The plaintiff had appeared for an interview on 23.12.1991 after being called pursuant to a recruitment process and had submitted all required original testimonials and documents. She alleged that a less meritorious candidate was appointed in her place, in breach of applicable recruitment rules and procedure.
The defendants contended that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate service and recruitment matters, that no statutory notice had been served under Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and that the suit was time-barred, as it was filed on 12.12.1994 against a merit list declared on 23.12.1991. They further contended that the last selected candidate had secured higher marks than the plaintiff, who had obtained only 58.98%, and that the plaintiff had not passed the elementary examination, which was a necessary qualification for the post.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendants' action was illegal and arbitrary, granted two additional marks to the plaintiff on the ground that she possessed knowledge of special subjects, and directed her appointment. The first appellate Court upheld this decree. The defendants thereafter preferred the present Second Appeal before the High Court.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had assumed the role and character of the Interview Committee by granting two additional marks to the plaintiff despite the absence of specific pleadings challenging the interview process. The Court stated: "It is surprising that, in absence of any specific pleadings challenging the interview process, learned Trial Court undertook such exercise and granted two additional marks to the plaintiff on the ground that she possessed knowledge of special subjects."
The Court further observed that the final merit list had been declared on 23.12.1991, and the Trial Court delivered its judgment on 12.04.2001, nearly eleven years thereafter. It recorded: "This Court is at a loss to understand under which provision of law the learned Trial Court assumed jurisdiction to re-assess the interview process, grant additional marks to the plaintiff, and direct the appellant – District Panchayat – to appoint plaintiff to the post of Primary Teacher that too after 11 years. It is complete colorable exercise of power and abuse of process of law."
On the question of a candidate's right to appointment, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which stated: "It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied."
On the issue of the absence of the last appointed candidate as a necessary party, the Court observed:"The selected candidate was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, and in his absence, no effective order could have been passed."
The Court further stated that the Civil Court's approach to interfere with the selection process was "beyond jurisdiction vested under section 9 of CPC and being completely faulty, palpably erroneous and egregiously malfactious."
On limitation, the Court recorded that the cause of action arose on the date of declaration of the final merit list and the suit had been instituted beyond the prescribed period of three years.
The Court directed: "For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeded. Impugned judgments and order are hereby quashed and set aside and consequently, Regular Civil Suit No.442 of 1994 is dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be send back to the learned Trial Court concerned."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Advocate
For the Respondents: Krishna R. Bhatt, Advocate; Mr. D.G. Shukla, Advocate; Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, Advocate
Case Title: District Primary Education Officer & Anr. v. Sabihaben Ayubhbhai Vora
Case Number: R/Second Appeal No. 117 of 2003
Bench: Justice J. C. Doshi
