SAJEESH BABU K.versusN.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.

                    (2012] 9 S.C.R. 849


                    SAJEESH BABU K.                             A
                              v.
                 N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 7599 of 2012)

                    OCTOBER 19, 2012
                                                                B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ-Petition -
Challenging selection for LPG distributorship and the
genuineness of the experience certificates produced by the C
selected candidate - Selection done by qualified persons -
Genuineness of the certificates also verified by the selector -
Single Judge of High Court quashing the distributorship
doubting the correctness of the certificates - Division Bench
of High Court affirming the order- On appeal, held: In a matter D
of selection by Expert Committee consisting of qualified
persons in a particular field, normally, the courts should be
slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts,
unless there is allegation of ma/a fide against the experts -
On facts, selection was by experts, no ma/a fide was alleged E
against them - Genuineness of the experience certificate was
duly verified - On equity also selection was correct as the
selected candidate was unemployed - High Court ought not
to have sat as an appellate court on recommendations of the
expert committee - Public Distribution - Equity.                 F
     Respondent No. 2, a Public Sector Oil Company,
engaged in refining of crude oil and marketing of various
petroleum products, invited applications fro grant of LPG
distributorship. 41 persons, including the appellant and
respondent No. 1 and 3 applied for the same. Respondent G
No. 2 selected the appellant after holding interview and
evaluating him as per the procedure prescribed under
the guidelines. In order to ascertain the genuineness of

                            849                                 H
    850      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A the contents of the experience certificates (Exh. Nos. P2
  and P3), respondent No. 2 deputed responsible persons.

         Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, challenging the
    genuineness of the experience certificates produced by
8   the appellant. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the
    petition quashing the distributors~ip. Writ appeal against
    the same was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court.
    Hence the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
       HELD: 1. In a matter of appointment/selection by an
  Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons
  in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow
  to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts,
o unless there is any allegation of mala tides against the
  experts who had constituted the Selection Committee.
  There is no allegation of mala tides against the 3 experts
  in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, it
  would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave
E the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who
  are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the
  work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee
  evaluated the experience certificates produced by the
  appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific
F questions as to direct sale, home delivered products,
  hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In
  such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have
  sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made
  by the Expert Committee. Interference by the High Court
  exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
G the Constitution of India is not warranted. [Paras 15 and
  18] [859-C; 861-F-H; 862-A]

       2. In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the
  Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as
H to this Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.             851


of the contents of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 A
and P3, respondent No. 2 deputed responsible persons
for verification and, in fact, they met the issuing authority
and were satisfied with the correctness of their statement.
In view of this aspect, the Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench committed an error in interfering with the B
decision of the Selection Committee. [Para 19) [862-B-D]

    3. Even on equity, the appellant is an unemployed
M.Tech post-Graduate and the contesting respondent
No.1 is working as an Assistant Engineer in the State         C
Electricity Board, in other words, he is fully employed on
the date of the selection of LPG distributorship. From any
angle, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the
decision of the Selection Committee, particularly, in the
absence of any mala tides against them and there is no
warrant for direction to re-assess the marks of the           0
appellant afresh by excluding the marks for certificates
(Exh. Nos. P2 and P3), particularly, in the light of the
detailed explanation offered by the respondent Ne;>. 2
about the mode of selection. [Para 19) [862-D-F]
                                                              E
     The University of Mysore etc. vs. G.D. Govinda Rao and
Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491: 1964 SCR 575 - followed.

    Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors. (2010) 8
sec 372:    2010 (9) SCR 227 - relied on.
                                                              F
                    Case Law Rerefence:
    1964 SCR 575            Followed             Para 16
    2010 (9) SCR 227        Relied on            Para 17
                                                              G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7599 of 2012.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2011 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 464 of 2011.
                                                              H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A       V. Giri, Roy Abraham, Mohammed Sadique T.A. (For C.K.
    Sasi) for the Appellant.

        Vikram Ganguly, S.C. Ghosh (For Parijat Sinha),
    Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Respondents.
B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order
C dated 06.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
  Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 464 of, 2011 whereby the
  Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
  by the appellant herein.

          3. Brief Facts:
D
        a) On 27.12.2007, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
  a Public Sector Oil Company engaged in refining of crude oil
  and marketing of various petroleum products (in short "the
  Corporation")-Respondent No. 2 herein invited applications for
E grant of LPG distributorship for Edavanna, Malappuram District,
  Kerala, a distributorship reserved for Scheduled Caste
  applicants. In total, 41 persons including the appellant and
  respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein applied for the grant of licence
  for the same.
F       b) The Corporation, after conducting interviews and
  evaluating the merits and demerits of the candidates as per the
  procedure prescribed under the guidelines for the selection of
  Bharatgas Distributors, selected the appellant herein for grant
  of licence of LPG distributorship and issued him a Letter of
G lnte.nt dated 25.06.2009·.

       c) Challenging the genuineness of the experience
  certificates produced by the appellant herein, Shri N.K.
  Santhosh-Respondent No.1 herein filed a petition being
H W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010 before the High Court of Kerala.
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.                     853
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Learned single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated              A
16.03.2011, allowed the petition and quashed the
distributorship granted to the appellant herein.

     d) Against the said judgment, the appellant herein filed a
Writ Appeal being No. 464 of 2011 before the High Court. The           B
Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated
06.04.2011, dismissed the said appeal.

     e) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed
this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
                                                                       c
    4. Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Vikram Ganguly, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Corporation. None appeared for respondent
No.3.                                                                  D

     5. It js the claim of the appellant that the Corporation, after
conducting interviews and evaluating the merits and demerits
of the candidates as per the procedure prescribed under the
guidelines for selection of Bharatgas Distributors, selected him       E
for grant of licence of LPG distributorship for Edavanna,
Malappuram District, Kerala. It is also pointed out that as per
the tabulation sheet, the appellant had scored highest marks
than the other candidates with reference to qualification,
experience, age, business ability and personality and was
placed in the first position whereas Respondent No.3 herein            F
was placed in the second and respondent No.1 herein. was
placed in the third position.

      6. Respondent No.1 herein, who is working in the Kerala
State Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer, challenged the          G
selection of the appellant herein before the High Court of Ker.ala
by filing a petition being W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010 alleging the
genuineness of the experience certificates (Exh. Nos. P2 and
P3) produced by him and awarding of more marks on the basis
of the same. He further claimed that the Selection Committee           H
    854       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   ought to have preferred his application for LPG distributorship.
    Learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition holding that
    the experience certificates submitted by the appellant appear
    to be totally unacceptable as the appellant while studying M.Tech
    could not have been possible to work as part-time Marketing
B   Manager and an Insurance Consultant. On this ground, the
    learned single Judge quashed the grant of licence of LPG
    distributorship to the appellant and directed the Corporation to
    re-assess his marks afresh excluding the marks for the
    experience certificates. The very same decision was affirmed
c   by the Division Bench of the High Court.

       7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the decision of
  the Selection Committee, the order of the learned single Judge
  setting aside the same and remitting it for fresh consideration
  as affirmed by the Division Bench, it is desirable to refer the
D relevant guidelines for selection of Bharatgas Distributors. It is
  pointed out by the Corporation, in their counter affidavit ,before
  the High Court as well as in this Court that as per Clause 14 of
  the guidelines, the LPG distributor will be selected on the basis
  of evaluation of all eligible applicants on the following
E parameters:

          a) Capability to provide infrastructure       - 35 marks
          b) Capability to provide finance              - 35 marks
          c) Educational qualifications                 - 15 marks
F         d) Age                                          - 4 marks
          e) Experience                                   - 4 marks
          f) Business ability/acumen                    - 5 marks
          g) Personality                                  - 2 marks
                  Total                                 100 marks
G
  It is also stated in their counter affidavit that the selection of the
  appellant was in accordance with the guidelines and norms
  governing the matter and there is no extraneous consideration
  in selecting him as an empanelled candidate. It is further
H explained that the evaluation on the parameters 'a' to 'd' will be
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.                  855
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

done on the basis of the information given in the application       A
and the evaluation on parameters 'e' to 'g' will be done on the
basis of the interview.

     8. As per the guidelines, the maximum marks for
experience in direct sale/home delivered products (including B
LPG distributorship), other petroleum products and for any other
trade are 4, 3 and 2 respectively. It has been further elaborated
in the guidelines that marks for the parameter 'Experience' are
awarded based on the information furnished in the application
for experience of running or working in an establishment for C
minimum one year and that too on the quality rather than
amount of experience. It is the case of the Corporation that the
quality of experience will be judged based on the response to
the questions relating to experience in direct sale, home
delivered products, trade of petroleum products, hospitality/
service industry etc. by the candidates in the interview. In the D
counter affidavit, it is also specifically stated that the appellant
has been awarded with 4 marks for the parameter 'Experience'
by the Selection Committee comprising of 3 senior officials of
the Corporation who are well qualified and experienced in
assessing the required experience for an LPG distributor. It is E
further explained that 4 marks were awarded to the appellant
strictly in accordance with the guidelines for the distributorship
of LPG and based on the response to the questions relating
to the above in the interview.
                                                                    F
     9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the
decision by the learned single Judge with reference to Exh. Nos.
P2 and P3 and the ultimate selection by the Committee. The
learned single Judge, in paragraph 4 of his judgment, arrived
at the following conclusion:
                                                                    G
    " .............. First of all, in Exts. P2 and P3 there is no
    mention that the second respon.dent was working part-
    time. Secondly, ordinarily, it would be very difficult for a
    M.Tech student to work part-time as a Marketing Manager
    of a gas distributor and an Insurance consultant. Thirdly,      H
    856       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A         as per Ext.P2 certificate the second respondent was
          working as Marketing Manager in Malappuram from
          December 2005 to March 2007. Ext. P3 certificate certifies
          that the second respondent worked as an Insurance
          consultant with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
B         since August 2006. The period of Exts. P2 and P3
          overlaps. Respondents 1 and 2 have not been able to give
          a satisfactory explanation for the same. Lastly, and more
          importantly as proved by Ext. P4, the second respondent
          was a M.Tech student of CUSAT which is at Ernakulam.
c         The fairly tale that a student studying for M.Tech in Cochin
          was working part-time as Marketing Manager and
          Insurance Consultant at Malappuram is totally
          unbelievable ................ "

  When this conclusion was challenged by the appellant herein
D before a Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench
  without much discussion merely affirmed the same. In view of
  the de:cision by the learned single Judge and the Division
  Bench, it is worthwhile to refer the contents of Exh. Nos. P2 and
  P3 and to see whether it would be possible for the appellant
E to have this experience while studying M.Tech., the assessment
  and the decision of the Selection Committee.

         10. We have _already quoted Clause 14 which deals with
  norms for evaluating the candidates. Before proceeding further,
F it is relevant to note that as per the guidelines, in case of LPG
  distributorship reserved for SC category, there will be no
  evaluation on land and financial capabilities as mentioned in
  sub-clauses (a) and {b) of Clause 14. It is not in dispute that
  the present distributorship has been reserved for Scheduled
G Caste applicants. In that event, the Selection Committee has
  to concentrate other clauses, namely, clauses (c) to (g) and
  select a suitable candidate based on their assessment.

         11. The Selection Committee relied on the Experience
    Certificate issued by M/s Sree Agencies, ELF Gas Distributor,
H
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.                   857
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Malappuram, Kerala, which reads as under:                          A
            "TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
          This is to certify that Mr. Sajeesh Babu,
    Kavalappara, S/o Balan residing at Kavalapara house,
    Padinhattumuri P.O. Malappuram Dist. Was worked in this        B
    office as marketing Manager from December 2005 to
    March 2007. He performed very well and his conduct was
    also good.
    Place : Malappuram        Stamp       Yours faithfully
    Date : 05.04.2007                          sd/-
                                                                   c
                                            Manager"
     12. The other certificate relied on by the Selection
Committee is the Experience Certificate issued by Bajaj Allianz
Life Insurance Company Limited which reads as under:               D
            "TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
          This is to certify that Mr. Sajeesh Babu,
    Kavalappara, S/o Balan K. residing at Kavalappra
    (House), Padinhattumuri (Post), Malappuram (Dist.) is          E
    being worked with us since August 2006 as an Insurance
    Consultant at our branch office Malappuram. His conduct
    during this period has been good.
                         OFFICAL SEAL
                                                                   F
                                                          Sd/-
                                      Senior Branch Manager
                                                 Bajaj Allianz
                                       Up Hill; Malappuram"        G
    13. The Degree Certificate issued by Cochin University of
Science and Technology, Faculty of Technology dated
23.12.2008 shows that the appellant has been awarded the
degree of Master of Technology in Software Engineering and
the appellant qualified with First class distinction at the        H
    858        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   examination held in June, 2008.

          14. The experience certificates issued by M/s Sree
     Agencies and M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
    were evaluated by the Selection Committee. It has already
B    been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation that
    the quality of experience will be judged on the basis of the
     response to the questions related to experience in direct sale,
     home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. by the
    candidates in the interview. It has also been informed to this
    Court that the appellant has been awarded 4 marks for
C   experience by the Selection Committee consisting of 3 senior
    officials of the Company who are well qualified and
    experienced in assessing the required experience for LPG
    distributorship. It is further asserted that after the interview, field
    verification had been done by the Corporation to verify the
D   genuineness and veracity of the documents submitted by the
    candidate as contemplated in clause 16 of the guidelines. It is
    further stated that the field verification had been conducted by
    a team comprising of 2 officers of the Corporation and that the
    team had met the Proprietor as well as Manager of M/s Sree
E   Agencies, who confirmed that Mr. Sajeesh Babu K. (appellant
    herein) worked with them on a part-time basis. It is the stand
    of the Corporation that since the persons who have issued the
    experience certificate admitted its issuance, the Corporation
    treats the same as genuine. They also reiterated and verified
F   that the certificates of experience have no relevance in granting
    marks under the parameter 'experience' as the same has been
    awarded on the basis of the response to the questions related
    to experience in the relevant field. The marks awarded by the
    Selection Committee are as follows:-
G   Name        Edu.      Ag      Expe-    Business      Perso-   Total
                Quali.            rience    ability      nality   Marks
    Santhosh     15         2        3        3.17       1.83     25.00
    N.K.
    Sajeesh      15         2        4        3.83       2.00     26.83
H   Babu K.
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.                  859
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

      15. From the above discussion, it is clear that in terms of A
the guidelines, the Selection Committee consisting of 3
experienced persons assessed the ability of the candidates with
reference to the answers for their questions and awarded
marks. In the absence of any allegation as to mala fide action
on the part of the selectors or disqualification etc., interference B
by the High Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.
      16. To strengthen the above proposition, it is useful to refer
 a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in The
 University of Mysore etc. vs. G.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR C
 1965 SC 491. The issue therein relates to one Anniah Gowda
to show cause as to under what authority he was holding the
post of a Research Reader in English in the Central College,
Bangalore. After considering the pleadings of both the parties,
consultation by an expert and the stand of the University, this D
Court set asid~ the order of the High Court and dismissed the
writ petition filed by the respondent therein. While considering
the said issue, the following conclusion of the Constitution Bench
as to the opinions expressed by the experts and interference
by the Court is relevant. It is ~een that in paragraph 13 of the E
judgment, the Constitution Bench has noted that the High Court
has criticized the report made by the Board and rejecting the
criticism of the High Court in such academic matters, held as
under:
    " ....... We are unable to see the point of criticism of the F
    High Court in such academic matters. Boards of
    Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when
    recommendations made by them and the appointments
    following on them, are challenged before courts, normally
    the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions G
    expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about
    mala tides against the experts who constituted the present
    Board; and so, we think it would normally be wise and safe
    for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters
    to experts who are more familiar with the problems they H
    860       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         face than the courts generally can be ............. "
         17. In a recent decision of this Court in Basavaiah (Dr.)
    vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein similar
    issue, namely, recommendations of Expert Committee and
    evaluation as well as judicial review under Art. 226 of the
B Constitution was considered by this Court. A short question
    involved in that case was that whether the appellants therein
    (Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath) were qualified to be
  · appointed as Readers in Sericulture? One Dr. H.L. Ramesh,
    respondent in both the appeals therein challenged the
C appointments of both the appellants on the ground that they
    were not qualified for the post of Readers in Sericulture.
    Learned single Judge, on 11.10.2004, after examining the
    pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties
    dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh -
D respondent in W.P. No. 24300 of 1999. Dr. H.L. Ramesh,
    aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred a writ appeal before
    the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ appeal was
    allowed and the appointments of the appellants therein were
    set aside leaving it open to the University of Mysore to make
E fresh selection in accordance with the law. The appellants,
    aggrieved by the said judgment; filed special leave petitions
    before this Court. In the High Court as well as in this Court, the
    University filed affidavit stating that the Expert Committee
    consisting of highly qualified 5 distinguished experts evaluated
F the qualification, experience and the publis~ed works of the
    appellants and found them eligible and suitable. In such
    circumstance, this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 20 & 21
    as under:
                "20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by
G         the University that the Expert Committee had carefully
          examined and scrutinised the qualification, experience and
          published work of the appellants before selecting them for
          the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our considered
          opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in
H         appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert
   SAJEESH BABU K. v. N.K. SANTHOSH & ORS.                  861
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert A
    Committee had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits
    of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent
    published work and its recommendations were sent to the
    University for appointment which were accepted by the
    University.                                                  B
          21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have
    to show deference and consideration-" to the
    recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of
    distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the
    experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and C
    published work of the appellants and thereafter
    recommendations for their appointments were made. The
    Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as
    an appellate court on the recommendations made by the
    country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture."         D
     18. It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by
an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in
the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to
interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless
there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who E
had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the
case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the
3 experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances,
we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for
the courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the F
experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of
the work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee ~valuated
the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein,
interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale,
home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. and G
awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High
Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the
recommendations made by the Expert Committee.
     19. In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the
                                                                   H
    862     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 9 S.C.R.

A Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as to this
  Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness of the contents
  of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 and P3, the Corporation
  deputed responsible persons for verification and, in fact, they
  met the issuing authority and satisfied with the correctness of
B their statement. In view of this aspect, we are satisfied that the
  learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed
  an error in interfering with the decision of the Selection
  Committee. We have already noted that there is no allegation
  of mala tides against the members of the Selection Committee.
c Even on eq_uity, the appellant is an unemployed M.Tech post-
  Graduate and the contesting respondent No.1 is working as an
  Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, in
  other words, he is fully employed on the date of the selection
  of LPG distributorship. Looking a~ from any angle, the High
  Court was not justified in upsetting the decision of the Selection
0
  Committee, particularly, in the absence of any mala tides
  against them and there is no warrant for direction to re-assess
  the marks of the appellant afresh by excluding the marks for
  certificates (Exh. Nos. P2 and P3), particularly, in the light of
E the detailed explanation offered by the Corporation about the
  mode of selection.
        20. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the
    judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated
    16.03.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 7622 of 2010 as well as the
F   judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.04.2011 in W.A. No.
    464 of 2011 and confirm the decision of the Selection
    Committee.
         21. The civil appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as
    to costs.
G K.K.T.                                           Appeal allowed