K.M. Joseph, J.

These two writ petitions arise out of an unsuccessful challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal to the selection made to the post of Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT for short) and Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI for short). W.P.(C) No.2561/2009 relates to the challenge to the post of Director, CIFT while W.P.(C) No.28670/2009 relates to the challenge to the post of Director, CMFRI.

2. W.P.(C) No.2561/2009:

Petitioner was an applicant to the post of Director, CIFT. Ext.P1 is the notification inviting applications for various posts including the post of Director, CIFT. Following were the qualifications prescribed.

"3. Director (One post)

Qualification Essential:

(1) Doctoral degree in Fisheries Technology/Fisheries Science/Marine Biology/Aquatic Ecology/ Zoology/Microbiology/Bio-Chemistry/Biotechnology/Mechanical Engineering applied to fishing, fish processing and related aspects including relevant basic sciences.(ii) & (iii) As in Item No.2 (ii) & 1 (iii) above.

Desirable: (i) Specialization and experience in harvest/post-harvest technology of fish/ ship design/Marine Engines and scientific reputation in the field of fishing/fish processing technology, (ii) Experience in Research Management with evidence of Scientific leadership vision/perspective on agricultural research."

The selection process involved screening of the candidates by a Screening Committee. The Screening Committee is to follow Score Card for various attributes of the candidates. It is those candidates who secure 50% and above who were called for interview. Petitioner was also called for interview. The Selection Committee, however, ranked the 4th respondent in the first place and 5th respondent in the second position. The petitioner was ranked at the 3rd position. Based on the ranking the 4th respondent came to be appointed as Director. It is the said selection which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal which has repelled the challenge.

3. We heard Sri.V.Sajith Kumar.learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jacob Varghese, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 2 who lead arguments on behalf of the respondents. The following are the contentions of Sri.V.Sajith Kumar.

(i) Learned counsel contends that as per Rule 28 of the revised Bye laws of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Society (ICAR) existing Bye laws 38 to 42 of the Society relating to recruitment and appointment to various posts in and under the Council will continue to be in force till such time as recruitment Rules to various categories of posts in the Council as provided in Rule 73 in the ICAR Rules framed are enforced. It is his contention that as per Clause 39 as far as the Interview Board for the post of Directors in various grades at the institute is concerned, it is to consist of Chairman ASRB, Director General of the 2nd respondent or his representative and two to three advisors as members. It is submitted that contrary to the said stipulation admittedly a member of the ASRB also is included in the Interview Board and the same has vitiated the entire selection. Learned counsel would submit that Recruitment Rules were not made.

(ii) According to the learned counsel, the composition of the Selection committee is to consist of not less than three Advisors drawn from outside Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). According to him, however, experts in the impugned selection were actually from within the System. Dr. K.Gopakumar who is alleged to have retired from ICAR was serving as Chairman of the Research Advisory Committee of CI FT. Dr.Kamal is alleged to have retired from ICAR as Assistant Director General (Fisheries). In his case it is stated that his field of experience is Biology.

(iii) The 4th respondent did not possess the necessary qualifications as notified in