Courts do not interfere with Selection Committee decisions absent evidence of mala fides or statutory violations, reaffirming the primacy of the Committee's expertise in candidate selection.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)--Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 passed in O.A./100/425/2021, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has dismissed his O.A.

2. The Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCTD of Delhi, issued an advertisement dated 15.10.2019, inviting applications for the post of Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities), as per the provisions of Section 79 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The last date of submissions of these forms was extended till 20.11.2019. The petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4 and several other persons had applied for the said post.

3. After all the necessary formalities were carried out, respondent No.4 was selected by the Search and Selection Committee and has already been appointed as the Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities).

4. Mr. Dinesh S. Badiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner is more qualified than respondent No.4 apart from being more experienced in this particular line i.e. rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities and the allied works.

5. Mr. Badiar contends that as per the eligibility criteria required in the advertisement dated 15.10.2019, the incumbent for the purposes of the advertisement ought to have special knowledge or practical experience in respect of the matters relating to rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. He also submits that so far as the educational qualifications are concerned, though the criteria mentioned is a graduate from a recognized university but the desirable qualification would be a person having a recognized degree or diploma in social work or law or management or human rights or rehabilitation or education for disabled persons.

6. Insofar as the experience is concerned, it is stipulated, he submits, in the advertisement that at least 20 years of experience in Group `A' level or equivalent post is also a requirement. However, at the same time, sub clause (III) of the experience, as sought, also stipulates that the incumbent should have been working in the capacity of a senior level functionary in a registered State or National or International level voluntary organization working in the field of disability or social development.

7. Based on this, Mr. Badiar submits that the petitioner fulfills all the above requirements as stipulated in the advertisement dated 15.10.2019. He also submits that in contradistinction to his own qualification and experience, respondent No.4 neither has the required educational qualification nor has the requisite experience as stipulated in the advertisement and, therefore, the impugned order, insofar as it dismisses his Original Application, is erroneous and ought to be quashed and set aside. He also seeks appointment as Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) in place of respondent No.4.

8. On the other hand, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the respondents is averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and also draws our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behal