Service Lawyer: The court cannot in exercise of Judicial review reappreciate the view of expert committee on technical matters; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice L Nageswara Rao

The Supreme Court holds that in service matters the Constitutional Courts, in exercise of power of Judicial review, could not come to an conclusion that the diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility condition advertised. It was held that the High Court had only looked to the bare nomenclature of diploma possessed by the appellant while holding that the appellant does not hold requisite qualification. It was further held that the Selection Committee, which was comprised of experts in the subjects, had given the finding that the diploma possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational qualification advertised. It was held that the High Court committed error of law by holding that diploma in yoga education is not the same as diploma in yoga or yoga therapy.

The SC (Dr. Sridip Chatterjee versus Dr. Gopal Chakraborty & Ors.) has set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, by which, the High Court had set aside the appointment of the appellant on the ground that he was not having the requisite qualification. Consequently, the SC directed that the appellant to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation, but he would not be entitled to pay for the period he was out of service. The appeal was allowed.