Courts Can’t Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules

Case: Dilip Kumar V. The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Coram: Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela

Case No.: W.P.(C) 4505/2021

Court Observation: “It is clear from the above advertisement that the person applying for the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) has to have special knowledge or experience in respect of the matters relating to the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and should not have attained the age of 60 years on the 1st January of the year in which the last date of receipt of application is specified. So far as the education qualifications are concerned, the essential condition is that an incumbent must be a graduate from a recognized university and so far as the experience is concerned, the incumbent must have at least 20 years’ experience in Group ‘A’ level or equivalent post in Central or State Government, Public Sector Undertaking or Semi Government or Autonomous bodies dealing with the disability relating matters or social sector or works in the capacity of a senior level functionary in a registered State or National or International level, voluntary organization working in the same field.”

“The Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability of an incumbent for the purposes of the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) have carried out the exercise and selected respondent No.4. The experience also, which is stipulated, has to be examined and evaluated by the Search and Selection Committee alone, since the parameters of eligibility conditions are best known to the experts…The issue regarding the non-interference by the courts in matters pertaining to the recommendations given by experts comprising the Search and Selection Committees is no more res integra.”

Previous Posts

(Matrimonial Offences) Burden Lies Upon Prosecution To Prove First Marriage & Legality Of Second Marriage: MP High Court

Provision Enabling Employee To Get Higher Gratuity Prevails Over One That Limits The Gratuity Amount: Kerala High Court

If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector: Delhi HC

If Tender Conditions/ Award Of Contract Is In Public Interest, Court Can’t Interfere Even If Procedural Aberration/ Error In Assessment Made Out: Delhi HC

Can’t Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC

Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable By Person Already Enlarged On Bail As He Is Under Constructive Custody: J&K&L High Court

Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Action Based On Subjective Opinion/Satisfaction Of Authority

Supreme Court Remands Appeal In 1964 Suit To High Court For Fresh Decision After 16 Years

GST – Provisional Attachment Power ‘Draconian’; Not Intended To Authorize Commissioners To Make Preemptive Strikes On Assessee’s Property Download Judgement

Keywords

Merits Of Selection, Selection Committee, Violation Of Statutory Rules