Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Govindaraj - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 18678 of 2016 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 13504 & 13505 of 2016
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Selection Process - Writ Petition - Advertisement No.2/2015 - M.Tech in Renewable Energy Systems - O.A.No.4361 of 2014 - CSIR Rules - Selection Committee - Judicial Review
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the selection of the fifth respondent for the post of Scientist, claiming that the selection was illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The petitioner argued that the fifth respondent did not meet the essential qualifications and that the selection was influenced by his prior association with the fourth respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the fifth respondent met the essential educational qualification for the post of Scientist, and his prior experience as a Trainee Scientist aligned with the desirable qualifications. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in selection matters and concluded that the selection of the fifth respondent was in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the qualifications and experience of the selected candidate, the petitioner's claim of unfair selection, and the extent of the Court's authority to review the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the alignment of the fifth respondent's qualifications and experience with the requirements of the position, as well as the principle of limited judicial review in selection matters.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The Court found that the selection of the fifth respondent was in accordance with the law, and consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fourth respondent proceeding No.07-01(01)/2015-R&C dated 26.08.2016 and quash the same in respect of Serial No.19 and also direct the fourth respondent to select the petitioner as qualified candidate for the post of S06-b as per Serial No.19 in the Advertisement No.2/2015 dated 12.08.2015.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent vide proceedings in No.07-01(01)/2015-R&C, dated 26.08.2016 in respect of Serial No.19 and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to select the petitioner as qualified candidate for the post of S06-b as per Serial No.19 in the Advertisement No.2 of 2015, dated 12.08.2015.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner completed B.E. Electrical and Electronic Engineering Degree in 2007 at Anna University, Chennai and he studied "Renewable Energy Systems" as one of the subjects under M.Tech Energy Conservation and Management Programme in Anna University, Tiruchirapalli. During his Post-Graduation, he underwent a project in Energy Management and Integration of PEM Fuel Cell with UAV at High Energy Batteries. After completion of his Post Graduation, he worked as Assistant Professor in NPR College of Engineering and Technology, Natham, for more than three years, i.e., from 13.07.2011 to 06.05.2015. The fourth respondent gave an Advertisement in Advertisement No.2 of 2015 dated 12.08.2015, calling for the posts of Scientist, Senior Scientist and Technical Assistant. The petitioner applied for the post of Scientist (S06 (b)) M.Tech in Renewable Energy Systems. He submitted that his "PG Degree Examination statement of grades" with "Renewable Energy Systems" comes under M.Tech Energy Conservation and Management Programme. Seven persons including the petitioner were called for interview. The fourth respondent vide proceedings in Na.07-01(01)/2015-R&C dated 26.08.2016, announced a list of selected candidates. Now, as per the list, the fifth respondent was selected. The fifth respondent was selected by the fourth respondent without following the conditions in the advertisement for the reason that he is doing Ph.D., in the same Institute. The fifth respondent did not have pervious experience. But at the same time, the petitioner has three years experience as Assistant Professor and also having six months experience in the same field, i.e., fuel cell. The selection of the fifth respondent by the fourth respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, this petition.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fifth respondent has not produced his Ph.D., Provisional Certificate, and in fact, the petitioner and others filed O.A.No.4361 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Direct the Respondent to appoint the Applicants as Scientist in Pay Band-3 of the Govt. of India in pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6660/- plus other allowance as applicable as per the advertisement dated 25.05.2012.
(b) Declare invalid the provisions of the Appointment Letters issued to the Applicants, insofar as they are inconsistent with the terms of the Advertisement dated 25th May 2012 and the Amended CSRAP Rules 2001.
(c) Quash the letter No.1-1 01(11(PGRPE)/2013-RAB) dated 19th September, 2014 issued by CSIR to the laboratories.
(d) Quash all consequential actions taken pursuant to the letter No.1-1 01(11(PERPE)/2013-PAB) dated 19th September, 2014.
(e) Pass such further orders(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case."
While disposing of the application, this Court, quashed the letter dated 19.09.2014 by which the service of the applicants has been discontinued. It was further
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in selection matters and highlights the importance of aligning qualifications and experience with the requirements of a position.
Selection decisions must be justified and not arbitrary, ensuring fairness in administrative processes.
The possession of prescribed educational qualification as of the cut-off date specified in the notification, the validity of relaxation of conditions, and the entitlement of candidates to be consider....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed educational qualifications and held that any relaxation of such requirements should be explicitly provided for in the notification.
Judicial review of expert selections is limited; candidates who participate without objection cannot later challenge the selection on grounds of eligibility.
Selection for public employment must be based on clear, objective criteria, with courts intervening where arbitrary processes are evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rules of the game, meaning the criteria for selection, cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process o....
The main legal point established is that the selection process must adhere to the criteria specified in the notification, and any deviation without issuing a corrigendum is impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
