2019 Supreme(Ker) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, V.G. ARUN, JJ.
The Union Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Jai Singh Meena S/o Sri. M.L. Meena – Respondent
OP (CAT) No. 28 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2019
For the Appellant : Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil.
For the Respondents: Sri. K. Jayesh Mohankumar, Sri P. Vijayakumar.
Headnote:
UPSC - Appointment Dispute - Annexure-A1, Annexure-A2 - The court found that the 4th respondent did not possess the essential qualification of 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern as required by Annexure-A2. The court held that the UPSC failed to independently consider the essential or desirable qualifications of the 4th respondent before recommending his name for appointment, resulting in the selection process being vitiated. The court emphasized that the decision of the Selection Committee is not inviolable and can be interfered with in cases of non-adherence to prescribed procedure, abdication of functions, mala-fides, or arbitrariness.
Fact of the Case:
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) filed an Original Petition challenging the Tribunal's order to quash the appointment of the 4th respondent as Director of the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT). The dispute arose from the 4th respondent's lack of essential qualifications and the UPSC's failure to independently consider the eligibility criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 4th respondent did not possess the necessary qualifications as per Annexure-A2, and the UPSC failed to independently consider the essential or desirable qualifications of the 4th respondent before recommending his appointment. The court dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the appointment and direct a recommencement of the selection process in compliance with the Recruitment Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the selection conducted by the UPSC would be inviolable, even in the face of an apparent illegality committed by deviating from the prescribed procedure and norms, which had vitiated the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision of the Selection Committee is not inviolable and can be interfered with in cases of non-adherence to prescribed procedure, abdication of functions, mala-fides, or arbitrariness. The UPSC's failure to independently consider the essential or desirable qualifications of the 4th respondent before recommending his appointment resulted in the selection process being vitiated.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the appointment and direct a recommencement of the selection process in compliance with the Recruitment Rules.
1. This Original Petition is filed by the Union Public Service Commission, the 2nd respondent in the Original Application filed by the 1st respondent herein. The Original Application was filed seeking to quash Annexure-A9 Office Memorandum, by which the 4th respondent was appointed as Director of the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT), Kochi under the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. The Government of India had, as per Annexure-A2 Circular dated 11.8.2016, invited applications to fill up the post of Director in the NIFPHATT from candidates possessing the requisite qualification, which are as under:-
“Composite method: Deputation (including Short-term Contract) Plus Promotion:
(I) Officers under the Central Government or State Governments or Union Territories or Agricultural Universities or Recognized Research Institutes or Councils or Semi-Government or Autonomous Bodies and Statutory Organizations:-
(a)(i) Holding analogous post on regular basis in the parent cadre or department.
(ii) with five years' service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 (Pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 10,000-15,200) or equivalent in the parent cadre or department.
(b) Possessing the following educational qualifications and experience:
Essential:
(I) Post Graduate Degree in Zoology or Marine Biology or Oceanography or Industrial Fisheries or Fisheries Science or Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry or Food Technology of a recognized University or Institute or equivalent.
Post Graduate Diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or equivalent.
(ii) Possessing seven years experience in Managerial Capacity or Fish Processing Technology including five years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern.
Desirable:
Ph.D in Fish Processing technology and quality assurance.
(II) The Departmental Deputy Director (Processing and Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 (Pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 10,000-15,200) with five years regular service in the grade and possessing qualifications at (b)(i) above shall also be considered along with outsiders and in case he or she is selected for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled on promotion.
2. The applicant, who had the requisite qualification and was holding the charge of Director at the time of issuance of the Notification, submitted his application through proper channel. The 4th respondent, who was working as the Chief Technical Officer, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai also submitted his application and was selected for appointment to the notified post, on the basis of the recommendation of the UPSC. The applicant challenged the selection and appointment of the respondent on the ground that the 4th respondent does not possess the requisite experience of 7 years in Fish Processing or Fish Processing Technology including 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity. It was also contended that the 4th respondent did not possess the desirable qualifications of Ph.D in Fish Processing Technology and Quality Assurance mentioned in Annexure A2. It was contended that the 4th respondent had acquired Ph.D in Migration and Fate of Selected Contaminants from Anthropogenic Discharges in Coastal Marine Environment, which is totally distinct from Fish Processing. The applicant had relied on Annexure A8 communication wherein it was specifically stated that the Administrative Experience of the 4th respondent in a Managerial Capacity was his experience in administration in the laboratory, which according to the applicant was not the requisite experience mentioned in the Notification. It was therefore contended that the selection undertaken pursuant to Annexure-A2 was in contravention of Annexure-A