ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents to Writ Petition No.5298 of 2014 against the judgment dated 02.02.2015 by which judgment the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider appointment of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with law. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are: Writ Petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant on 12.12.1982 in the Coir Board. She was initially promoted on adhoc basis as Scientific Officer in the year 1994. Subsequently, petitioner was selected for the post of Senior Scientific Officer under direct recruitment with effect from 06.12.2007. Secretary of the Coir Board issued a Notification inviting application for appointment on the post of Director (RD & TE). Petitioner who fulfilled the qualification for the post submitted application. The Coir Board published a rank list in which petitioner’s name was included at serial No.2. The Coir Board with the approval of the Government of India offered appointment to the candidate who was placed at serial No.1. However, the candidate at serial No.1 expressed her inability to assume duties of the Director. The Coir Board vide its letter dated 17.01.2014 recommended the Government to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Director since the candidate who was placed at serial No.1 has refused to assume duties. Petitioner also filed a representation before the Coir Board on 11.02.2014 requesting for being appointed on the post of Director since the candidate at serial No.1 has declined the offer of appointment. Government of India vide letter dated 19.02.2014 communicated to the Coir Board that the recommendation dated 17.01.2014 of the Coir Board has been examined in the Ministry and it has been decided that Coir Board may go for fresh advertisement for filling up the post of Director (RD & TE). Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the said communication, Ext.P7.

3. Following are the prayers which were made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition:

“(a) declare that the non-feasance on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and appoint the petitioner as Director (RD & TE) against the vacancy notified by Exhibit P2 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Director (RD & TE) forthwith, with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of offer of appointment issued to the 1st rank holder Dr. Haseena A.P.

(c) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P7 and quash the same.

(d) award costs of and incidental to this Writ Petition (Civil).

(e) pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India in the Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the proposal was sent by the Coir Board to the Ministry seeking approval for appointing the 2nd rank holder, the petitioner as Director (RD & TE). In the counter affidavit it was stated that the matter was examined keeping in view of the merits of the matter and interest of the Coir Board and the Ministry directed the Board to go for fresh advertisement for filling up of the post.

5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In the Writ Appeal counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein petitioner has annexed letter dated 31.10.2014 of the Government of India by which reply was given to the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Petitioner was communicated the note dated 31.01.2014 of the Ministry giving reasons for non-approval of petitioner’s appointment.

6. Learned Single Judge vide his judg