Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KULDIP CHAND versus STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

Decided
11 April 1997
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 858 · 1997 INSC 410
Also cited as
  • AIR 1997 SC 2606 (2 citing judgments)
  • (1997) 5 SCC 60 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 858, margin F

The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No. 4 challenged his appointment on the basis that he was academically more meritorious than the appellant and that the Selection Committee was not justified in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellant. The appellant has put the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.

pp. 858–859, margin F

The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in· complete error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to respondent No. 4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the field exclusively reserved for the selection committee. The finding that the appellant 'manipulated' his selection is not supported by any material and reasons and is purely a conjectural finding.

p. 859, margin A

In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke, Etc. Etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan Etc. Etc., AIR (1990) SC 434, while dealing with some what identical question, this Court opined :

p. 859, margin B

"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whet4er a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant status. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its juris-

p. 859, margin C

diction."

p. 859, margin F

The above observation apply to the facts of the present case with full force.

p. 859, margin G

In the instant case the selection of the appellant was quashed by the Tribunal by finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant without assigning any reasons. The selection of the appellant was not quashed on any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the other issues involved in the case on merits in accordance with l~w and after hearing the parties. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

pp. 859–860, margin G