Advocate general Devidas Pangam stated that the required clarification would be issued. “Consistent with the statement of the Advocate General, the concerned authorities must issue this clarification before any other posts of Senior Residents are filled up so that there is no ambiguity when the Departmental Selection Committee is convened for the selection of Senior Residents. The committees or the authorities must also consider pre-disclosure of the proposed criteria and strive to maintain consistency,” stated Justice Mahesh Sonak and Bharat Deshpande.
Two candidates went to the high court challenging the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of senior resident advertised on April 4, this year, alleging that there was no transparency in the selection process and that a defective advertisement was published.
The candidates submitted to the high court that the selection procedures were manipulated only to favour the daughter of a head of department.
Senior counsel S Lotlikar submitted that at least until the last year, information under RTI revealed that selections were based on 30 marks towards BDS qualification, 30 marks towards MDS qualification, 15 marks towards speciality related activities like publications, presentations and others, 5 marks towards experience and 20 marks towards oral interview involving presentation and knowledge of the subject.
He added that there was a departure from this procedure for this year without any tangible reasons other than to favour the selected candidate and added that the departure focused entirely on 20 marks in the oral interview where manipulations were easily possible and practised.
The high court admitted there was a problem with the advertisement issued but stated that it has no nexus with allegations of malafides and declined to interfere with the selection process.
“Though these are mistakes, neither the petitioners nor the selected respondents suffered or gained anything from them. This is also not a case where some other candidates could have been misled into not applying due to such mistakes. The mistakes, though they should be avoided in future, do not appear to have had any significant bearing on the selection process this year. Therefore, based on such mistakes, the selection process does not need to be upset,” the high court stated.