The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair procedures, objective assessment, and non-discrimination in promotion decisions.

1. - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, a Stenographer-cum-personal Assistant in District Court, Jodhpur, has filed this writ petition challenging her supersession in promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant, which post was created in 1989 and was filled for the first time when the Rules were silent about the 5 criterion for such promotion.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the promotion of respondent No. 3 who was junior to her as Stenographer-cum-Personal Assistant to the post of Senior Personal Assistant vide Annex.3 and the rejection of her appeal against that promotion vide Annex.5. While the petitioner has claimed that there being no criterion prescribed, the promotion should have been made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability to the newly created post, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has stated that it being a newly created post, on s advise being sought by the learned District Judge, the High Court has left it to the discretion of the District Judge to fill up the post either by seniority-cum-merit or by merit according to his best judgment. Consequently, the District Judge has chosen to fill the post by merit as it was a single post. By considering the competitive merit, the respondent no. 3 was found more suitable, hence, he was promoted.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has supported the promotion of respondent No. 3 on the post on the basis of merit criterion.

5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that adjudging the competitive merit being a matter within the province of the appointing authority and he is the best judge to judge the competitive merit on the basis of material before him, except for the reasons of male fide, his decision is not liable to be interfered with by way of judicial review. No allegations of mala fide are made in the petition.

6. It was also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that it being the matter of subjective satisfaction of appointing authority and there being no requirement. by statute. it was not incumbent upon the appointing authority to give reasons for his choice of most meritorious candidate and the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction ought not to interfere in the matter of selection of a suitable candidate for the post.

7. Undoubtedly, selection of a suitable candidate for any post, rest in the domain of administrative functions of Appointing Authority and the Court ordinarily does not interfere in exercise of such power except on the ground of mala-fides or not adhering to the fair procedure in taking such decision. That principle is well settled to be reiterated and restated. As a matter of fact, all the decisions cited at the Bar are unanimous on the point that fairness must be the criteria for administrative action in the matter of selecting a candidate for promotion.

8. In National Institute of Mental Helath & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1806 , relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, where the question relating to appointment of a professor of Neurologist to be made by a Selection Committee, appointed for that purpose, was considered. The selection was challenged on the ground that while selecting a particular candidate, no reasons were given by Selection Committee. The Court repelling that contention emphasized:

"Giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or fair procedure in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration."
And if that is so, the administrative action, when questioned, is liable to be set at naught, if it does not inform of adherence to fair procedur