The absence of a specific member in the selection committee does not necessarily invalidate the selection process, especially when high-ranking officers are involved.

C.S. Rajan, J.

1. The petitioner working in the service of the second respondent as Joint Director. The post to which the petitioner is aspiring to be appointed is Resident Director, Trade Promotion Office, New York. The method of selection and qualification to the above post have been prescribed by Ext. P1 notification by the second respondent. The selection to the above post is to be made by the Government of India after considering recommendation of the Committee consisting of a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) (Second respondent) and the Director, MPEDA. The appointment will be made by the MPEDA subject to the approval of the Government of India. The prime objection to the selection of the fourth respondent, who is an I. A. S. Officer is that as required under the rules (Ext. P1) no Committee was constituted including the representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, MPEDA and Director of MPEDA. Therefore, it was stressed in the Original Petition that the committee itself has not been constituted with an ulterior motive to appoint the 4th respondent and it is malafide and biased.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The above statement discloses the following facts. A Committee was constituted by the first respondent which included a representative of the Ministry of Commerce and the Chairman of MPEDA. It is admitted that the Director of MPEDA was not included in the selection committee. But a high level committee in the Ministry of Commerce considered the eligible candidates for the post. This committee included the Chairman of MPEDA as well. No malafide could be attributed just because the Director of MPEDA was not included in the Selection committee.

3. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the admitted facts disclosed in the statement filed by the first respondent argued that the very constitution of the committee is illegal and inconsistent with Ext. P1 rules. Therefore, it is argued that the very basis of the selection is illegal and therefore cannot be sustained. In order to drive home the above point the learned counsel cited the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of A.P. v. Mohanjit Singh (1988 (Supp.) SCC 562). In the above ruling the Supreme Court held as follows:

"In view of the G.O. making essential presence of a particular member of the selection committee in the meeting of the committee, in his absence in the meeting, it cannot be said that there was a proper selection committee constituted on the date when the selection was made. Ratification by that member at a later point of time cannot validate the proceeding of the selection committee as there was no quorum and in its absence, the committee was not entitled to transact business. The Government order makes it clear that the selection committee is intended to function as a body. In case all the members were present at the selection there would have been scope for exchange of view when the candidates appeared and the selection would have been interms of the scheme. Once a decision is taken the conclusion already reached, it becomes a very different type of activity."

In order to understand the scope of the above ruling it is necessary to refer the Government order by which the selection committee was constituted. The above Government Order was quoted in Para.3 of the above judgment. According to the Government Order, the presence of atleast one representative of the University and the representative of the Director of Higher Education in the Selection Committee meeting should be regarded as essential for completing the quorum. On the basis of the above stipulation in the Government Order the Supreme Court held that the decision of the selection committee without the presence of a Director of Higher Education is bad in law. Yet another ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is th