SECY. (HEALTH) DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND F.W. AND ANR.versusDR. ANITA PURI AND ORS.

  SECY. (HEALTH) DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND F.W. AND ANR.                            A
                           v.
               DR. ANITA PURI AND ORS.

                           AUGUST 30, 1996

           (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                              B

     Se1Vice Law :

      Selection and appointment-Advertisement stipulated preference for
higher qualification-Held : Person with higher qualification was not auto-
matically entitled as of right to be selected and appointed.
                                                                               c
        Selection and appointment-Awarding of marks for different
f acets-Weightage to each facet-Fixation of-Held : in absence of statut01y
mle or any guideline issued by Govemment awarding of marks to different
face ts and fv::ation of weightage not arbitra1y.                              D
       Respondent No. 1 was a candidatf for t1'.e post of Dental Officer in
response to an advertisement which prescribed B.D.S. as the minimum
qualification but stipulated preference for higher dental qualification. The
Public Service Commission awarded marks for different aspects in can-
didates while evolving the selection procedure. Respondent No. 1 who had       E
the qualification of M.D.S. was not selected for the post of Dental Officer,
and she filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that she was
entitled to be selected for the post of Dental Officer on the basis of her
higher qualification, which was allowed. Being aggrieved the appellants
preferred the present appeal.                                                  p
      On behalf of the appellants it was contended that in the absence of
any statutory rule it was but natural for the Public Service Commission to
evolve a selection procedure of its own; that awarding marks for different
aspects of candidates was not arbitrary and irrational; and that a person
with higher qualification was not entitled to be selected as of right.     G
      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualifica·
tion as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that
preference should be giv.,. for higher qualification, the only meaning it H
                                    361
    362                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A conveys is that some additional weightage has to the higher qualified
  candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean
  that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and
  appointed. In adjudging the suitability of a person for the post, the expert
  body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory
  criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and
B
  selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is
  adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking
  into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate
  throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which
  the selection is going to be held; his general aptitude for the job to be
C ascertained in course of interview, extra-curriculum activities like sports
  and other allied subjects, personality of the candidates as assessed in the
  interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for
  assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selec-
  tion is going to be held. Hence, the High Court was wholly in error in
  holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent No. 1 was entitled
D
  to be selected and appointed. [365-G-H; 366-A:-D]

          2.1. There is no statutory rule or any guideline issued by the Govern-
    ment for Service Commission for the purpose of evaluation of merit of the
    candidates. When the Public Service Commission is required to select
E   some candidates out of a number of applicants for certain post, the sole
    authority and discretion is vested with the Commission. The Commission
    is required to evolve the relative fitness and merit of the candidate and
    then select candidates in accordance which such evaluation. If, for that
    purpose the Commission prescribes marks for different facets and then
    evaluates the medt, the process of evaluation cannot be considered to be
F
    arbitrary unless marks allotted for a particular facet is on the face of it
    excessive. Weightage to be given to different facets of a candidate as well
    as to the viva voce test vary from service to service depending upon the
    requirement of the service itself. [367-B-D]

G       Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Other Etc., [1981] 1
    sec 722, relied on.
          2.2. It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert
     body like Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts          [
H    having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field
        SECY. (HEALTH) DEP1T. OF HEALTH AND F.W. v. ANITA PURI [PATTANA!K,J.J   363

for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere A
with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of ma/a fide are
made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave
the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with
the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers
suitability ofa candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration B
to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere
with such selection and ~valuation. [367-G-H; 368-A]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11453 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.93 of the Punjab &
                                                                                      c
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 688 of 1993.

        H.S. Munjral and Manoj Swarup for the appellants.

     Krishna Dev Puri' for Dr. Anita Puri for the In-person for the D
Respondents No. 1.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted.
                                                                                      E
      This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27th September, 1993 passed in
Civil Writ Petition No. 688 of 1993.

      Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition challenging the selection
made by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Dental F
Officers inter alia on the ground that the selection has been made arbitrari-
ly and is contrary to the positive terms of the advertisement indicating
preference to be given for higher dental qualification. It was pleaded
before the High Court that an advertisement had been issued in the
newspaper on September 9, 1991 for 21 posts of Dental Officers out of
which 12 posts were meant for general category, 5 for Scheduled Castes, 2 G
for Backward Class and 2 for Ex-Serviceman. It was stipulated in the
advertisement that preferences would be given for higher dental qualifica-
tion and the minimum qualifica.tion for the posts was B.D.S. Respondent
No. 1 who had the qualification of M.D.S. claim entitled to be selected on
the basis of higher qualification. It was also pleaded that the Public Service H
    364                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Commission acted arbitrarily in awarding 20 marks out of 100 marks for
    viva-voce, 20 marks for general knowledge and only 2 marks for higher
  qualification. The private respondents who contested the proceedings filed
  their counter-affidavit stating therein that in the absence of any statutory
  rule governing the mode of selection for the post of Dental Officer, an
  expert body like Public Service Commission had awarded different marks
B
  and evaluated the respective merit of all the applicants and finally selected
  the meritorious one and, therefore, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. It was
  also urged that the selection thus made by the Public Service Commission
  is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Division
  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court came to hold that under the
c advertisement   in question, persons having higher qualification of M.D.S.
  form a class by themselves and, therefore, they are entitled to be selected
  for the post on the basis of their qualification and the Public Service
  Commission acted against the sprit and intention of the appointing
  authority who had laid down the minimum qualification for the job and
D indicated preference for higher qualification. By referring to the meaning
  of the expression 'prefer' indifferent dictionaries, the High Court also held
                                                                                     ,t:::
  that such persons having preferential qualification are entitled to be
  selected and appointed unless they are otherwise held to be not suitable.
  The High Court also further came to the conclusion that the awarding of
   different marks by the Public Service Commission is arbitrary and irration-
E al. With these conclusions the writ petition having been allowed and Public
  Service Commission having been directed to forward the names of the
   respondents, the State has come up in appeal.

           Mr. Manoj Swamp, the learned counsel for the appellant contended
p   that in the absence of any statutory rule when the Public Service Commis-
    sion is required to select candidates on evaluation of their respective merit,
    it is but natural for the Commission to evolve a procedure of its own. In
    evolving such procedure marks are awarded in different aspects and judge
    from that stand point the allocation of 100 marks in different aspects of
    the candidates and thereafter evaluation of the respective merit of the
G   candidates after awarding marks on different aspects, cannot be held to be
    arbitrary and irrational. The learned counsel further contended that when
    the appointing authority indicated in the advertisement that higher
    qualification persons will get preference, it, does not tantamount to mean
    that all persons with higher qualification than the minimum eligible
H   qualification should be selected and appointed ipso facto. The only mean-


                                                                                     '
     SECY. (HEALIB) DEP1T. OF HEALTH AND F.W. v. ANITAPURl[PATIANAIK,J.[   365

ing it would convey is that some preference should be given to those A
persons having higher qualification. That being the position the High Court
was totally in error in holding that the Public Service Commission acted
against the spirit and intention of the appointing authority. The learned
counsel further urged that in the absence of any allegation of mala fide in
the process of selection, when discretion has been conferred on the expert B
body like Public Service Commission the selection after evaluation of the
merit of the candidates, the procedure that has been followed in the case
cannot be faulted with. The High Court, therefore, was in error in annuling
the selection made.

       The learned counsel ap~earing for the Respondent No. 1 on the C
other hand argued with force that the High Court was wholly justified in
holding that the person with higher qualification has to be selected and
appointed unless he is otherwise found unsuitable and that was the true
intention and spirit of the advertisement and, therefore, there is no jus-
tification for this Court to interfere with the conclusion of the High Court. D

      Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on
examining the terms and conditions of the advertisement referred to by the
High Court in its judgment, we find sufficient force in the contentions of
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
                                                                                 E
      Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for
applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was
clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It
was aiso stipulated that preference should he given for higher dental
qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is higher qualification
than the minimum qualification required for the post and the Respondent
                                                                              F
No. 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person
holding R M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as
of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for
higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the
negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the G
minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference
should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that
some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified can-
didates. But by no stretch of impagination it can be construed to mean that
a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and H
    366                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A appointed. In adjudging the suitability of a person for the post, the expert
    body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria
    has the discretion of evolving its mode evaluation of merit and selection of
    the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not
    on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account
B   the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his
    educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is
    going to be held; his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course
    of interview, extra-curriculum activities like sports and other allied subjects,
    personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other
    germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability
c   of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. In
    this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was
    wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent
    No. 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government
    indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get
D   some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is
    wholly unsustainable and must be reversed.

          Coming to the second limb of the reasonings advanced by the High
     Court it is to be seen that the Public Service Commission had fixed 100
E    marks for the purpose of selection which were bifurcated as under :

             1. Academic achievement                        20 marks
                As per essential qualification

             2. Higher qualification                        2V2 marks

F            3. Gold Medal                                  2V2 marks

             4. Sports                                      10 marks

             5. Experience : 1 mark for each year           5 marks.
                subject to maximum 5.

G            6. (i) Professional knowledge and              20 marks
                  aptitude for the job
                  (ii) viva voce                            20 marks

                  (iii) General Knowledge                   20 marks

H                                        Total             100 marks
     SECY.(HEAL1H) DEP1T OFHEALTHANDF.W. v. ANITA PURI [PATTANA!K.J.]    '367

       The question for consideration is whether such sub-division of marks A
by the Commission on different facets and awarding only 2 1/2 Marks for
higher qualification can be said to be arbitrary? Admittedly, there is no
 statutory rule or any guideline issued by the Government for the Commis-
sion for the purpose of evaluation of merit of the respective candidates.
When the Public Service Commission is required to select some candidates B
out of number of applicants for certain posts, the sole authority and
discretion is vested with the Commission. The Commission is required to
envolve the relative fitness and merit of the candidate and then select
 candidates in accordance with such evaluation. If, for that purpose the
Commission prescribes marks for different facets and then evaluates the
merit, the process to evaluation cannot be considered to be arbitrary unless    c
marks allotted for a particular facet is on the face of it excessive. Weightage
to be given to different facets of a candidates as well as to the viva voce
test vary from service to service depending upon the requirement of the
service itself. In course of the arguments before us the learned counsel for
the Respondent No. 1 had submitted that the awarding of 20 marks for D
viva voce and 20 marks for General Knowledge out of 100 marks must be
held to be on the face of it arbitrary giving a handle lo the Public Service
Commission to manipulate the selection and, therefore, the High Court had
rightly come to the conclusion that it was arbitrary. We are unable to
accept this contention. This Court in the case of Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid
                                                                                E
Mujib Sehravardi and Others Etc., (1981) 1 S.C.C. 722, while considering
the case of selection, wherein 33% marks was the minimum requirement
by a candidate in viva voce for being selected, held that it does not incur
any consitutional infirmity. As has been stated earlier the expert body has
to evolve some procedure for assessing the merit and suitability of the
appellants and the same necessarily has to be made only by allotting marks F
on different facets and them awarding marks in respect of each facet of a
candidate and finally evaluating his merit. It is too well settled that when
a selection is made by an expert body like public Service Commission which
is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic
qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts G
should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless
allegations of ma/a fide are made established. It would be prudent and safe
for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who
are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert
body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving H
    368                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not
    ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation. Thus, considered
    we are not in a position to agree with the conclusion of the High Court
    that the marks awarded by the Commission was arbitrary or that the
    selection made by the Commission was in any way vitiated.
B         In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the judgment of the Division
    Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and allow this appeal. The
    writ petition filed by the respondents ~~and dismissed, there will be no
    order as to costs.

    v.s.s.                                                   Appeal allowed.