Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

658
Madhya Pradesh PSC
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can
be. Undoubtedly, even such a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding
upon it in making the selection and recommending the selectees for appointment, the
Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce rule of law, may interfere in a
writ petition under Article 226. Even then the Court, while enforcing the rule of law,
should give due weight to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due
regard to its recommendations on which the State Government acted. If the
recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping in view the relevant rules and
regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court could be very
slow to interfere with such recommendations (see, University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda
Rao). In a more comparable situation in State of Bihar v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, this
Court observed as per para 31 of that decision already quoted in para 16 of this order.)”
17. It is, therefore, settled that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could interfere if
there is an infringement of fundamental right on a rule and in the present case, therefore, what has to be
seen is as to whether the respondent No.3 satisfied the qualifications as prescribed under the rule and
notified in the advertisement. It is not disputed that on the date on which the application was made and
the date on which the interviews were held, this respondent No.3 was not possessed of qualifications
(post-graduate degree) but he has been called for interview on the basis that he held a Second Class
degree and had about 5 years teaching experience. The controversy has been further narrowed
because it is now admitted that on 26.7.1978 this respondent No.3 left the Engineering College,
Jabalpur and joined Rourkee University for his post-graduate studies and it is also not in dispute that
if his teaching experience is counted upto 26.7.1978, he does not fulfill the requirement of about 5
years experience in teaching. The controversy is as to whether the time spent in Rourkee for studies
for a post-graduate degree could be considered as teaching experience.
18. In the initial return filed by the Public Service Commission paragraph 3 of which has been
quoted above, it appears that the Public Service Commission took the stand that they did not have full
particulars and as the Government did not place before the Public Service Commission the necessary
material, the Commission considered the abstract of application and, therefore, as they did not know
that this respondent No.3 left the Engineering College, Jabalpur on 26.7.1978 for his Master’s degree,
it was presumed that he must be continuing and, therefore, on the date of application he completed 5
years teaching experience as required under the rule and also under the advertisement. It was contended
by the learned Deputy Advocate-General that in para 4 of the initial return itself, which has been
quoted above, the Public Service Commission felt that he had fulfilled the required qualification of
teaching experience as it felt that teaching experience of more than 5 years means the period including
training or further studies as it was stated in this para:-