The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to intervene in matters where the process of assessment is vitiated, even if the selection committee consists of experts in the field.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction for setting aside the order dated 9.3.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby the original application (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No.2- Dr. Parveen Kumar was allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1-National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management advertised certain posts including one that of Deputy Librarian vide advertisement dated 29.11.2015. Respondent No.2 being eligible and qualified applied for the said post. However, petitioner No.1 re-advertised the post of Deputy Librarian vide advertisement dated 8.10.2016. Respondent No.2 again applied for the said post and was called for interview to be held on 28th March, 2017 but the same was cancelled on 26th March, 2017, and thereafter, no interview was conducted. The post of Deputy Librarian was again advertised by the petitioner No.1 vide advertisement dated 24.4.2018. Respondent No.2 again applied for the said post along with another 26 candidates. Applications were scrutinized by the screening committee and respondent No.2 was found eligible along with other 23 candidates. Out of the aforesaid eligible candidates only 5 candidates including respondent No.2 were shortlisted and called for interview, which was held on 15.3.2019. Only 3 candidates appeared for interview before the selection committee i.e. petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 obtained highest marks i.e. 61.79 out of total 100 marks on the basis of academic qualification, experience and performance in interview. Narender Kumar another candidate who did not appear for the interview got 60.85 marks on the basis of academic qualification and experience. Mahendera Kumar Sahu another absent candidate got third highest marks of 52.52 marks on the basis of academic qualification and experience. Despite getting highest marks, respondent No.2 never received any appointment letter. On inquiry he came to know that the selection committee did not recommend the name of any candidate as none was found suitable for the post of Deputy Librarian. The copy of the result notice dated 29th March, 2019 is Annexure A-7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid result, respondent No.2 approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notice and thereafter heard both the parties. Finally the Tribunal allowed the original application of respondent No.2 and directed the respondents/petitioners herein to constitute fresh selection committee for the purpose of conducting interview of the shortlisted candidates and to conduct the interview process de-novo. The selection committee was directed to award marks to the interviewed candidates and then recommend the panel, with minimum of 2 names in the waiting list, in order of merit, as prescribed in the selection process. The entire process was directed to be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order, have filed the present writ petition.

5. We have heard counsel for the petitioners.

6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the selection process in question was concluded on 29th March, 2019 as no candidate was found suitable for appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian by the selection committee. Now after a gap of 2 years, there was no occasion or reason for the Tribunal to direct the selection committee to conduct the interview process afresh. The learned counsel further submitted that during the interregnum period, the petitioner No.1 has advertised one post of Deputy Librarian (UR) vide advertisement dated 9th November, 2020, as no interim stay order was passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent No.2. Even fact regarding re-advertisement of the said post was also brought to the notice of the t