Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or direction to set aside and quash the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.2662/2017.

2. The petitioner, in the present petition, has averred that the respondent- Indian Space Research Organisation (‘ISRO’), vide Notification dated 04.10.2016 invited applications for two posts of Administrative Officer under SC/ST Category. The selection process comprised of two parts, i.e.written test and interview. The petitioner applied for it under SC Category.

3. According to petitioner, five candidates were allowed to participate in the interview on the basis of their performance in written test. The final select list was issued on 16.05.2017 whereby petitioner’s name was not included. Petitioner by way of application dated 19.05.2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005, sought details of marks of candidates who were invited for interview for the post of Administrative Officer. The petitioner claimed that in the reply to the aforesaid application under RTI Act, the respondent No.1-Department of Space indicated that he had secured highest in the written examination and in aggregate in the interview.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred OA No.2532/2017 before the learned Tribunal, however, withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh OA for the same cause of action.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred OA No.2662/2017 before the learned Tribunal under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985 seeking quashing and setting aside of order of appointment and for removal of respondent No.3-Mr. Solanki Suryakant Jashwant Kumar, from the post of Administrative Officer appointed under the impugned illegal order and sought further direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to give him appointment.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner pleaded that he was highest qualified and had 5 years’ experience. He had secured highest marks in the written examination i.e. 79.25 out of 100. He also pleaded that against 1 advertised post, respondent No.1 invited 5 candidates for interview despite the general rule of law restricting it to three numbers.

7. The stand of respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal was that in the final selection process, the weightage apportionment of marks for the two elements, viz. written test and interview was 60 marks for written test and 40 marks for interview respectively. The written test marks, out of total 124 marks, were to be normalized with reference to a maximum of 60. Those, who secured minimum of 50% marks in each element of assessment, i.e. written test and interview, and an aggregate minimum of 60% marks, were considered for empanelment, in the order of merit.

8. Thus, according to respondent No.1, selection process was fair and the allegations leveled by the petitioner were baseless. It was also averred on behalf of respondent No.1, that 5 candidates were invited for interview but not against 01 vacancy but against 02 vacancies under SC & ST Category.

9. The learned Tribunal on the pleading of both the sides observed that no doubt the petitioner had fairly attempted the written examination, however, he could not perform well in the i