The decision-making process must not be legally flawed, and interference is warranted when fundamental principles of natural justice are flouted.

K.M. Joseph, J.

Prayers in the amended writ petition read as follows:

“i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure No. 29) issued under the signatures of Sri A.K. Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed University) and Order No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December 2011, issued by the respondent no. 2 as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32) and resolution no. 10/2011 passed by the Board of Management of Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University on 14th July, 2011 declaring all these orders/decisions totally illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice (inserted vide Hon’ble Court’s Order dated 8/6/2016).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by commanding the respondent no. 5 to initiate and take action against the second and third respondents for the illegalities/misuse and abuse of the powers committed by them and pass such order as this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice may deem fit and proper.

iii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the appointment of the respondent no. 2 as Director General of ICFRE.

iv. Issue an interim order or direction by staying the operation of the order issued vide Memo No. 2831/1-1/2007-FRIU dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure No. 29) issued under the signatures of Sri A.K. Tripathi, Registrar FRI (Deemed University) and Order No. 3641/1-1/2007-FRI DU, dated 2nd December 2011, issued by the respondent no. 2 as Director FRI and Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 32) during the pendency of this writ petition.”

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner, while serving as a Lecturer, came to be appointed in the Indian Forest Service during 1978 and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. He came to be promoted finally to the post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the year 2008. In 1995, he was deputed to the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Government of India as Head of Non-Wood Forest product in Forest Research Institute (for short ‘F.R.I.’). He served there till 1997. He was repatriated during 2004 and promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. Again, in 2006, he was posted on deputation to ICFRE, Dehradun, as Deputy Director General (Research), which post he held till 2011. He was posted as Director General In-Charge in the ICFRE in the month of August, 2009. He enrolled himself during 1996 as a student for Ph.D. Course in Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University in Non Wood Forest Product (N.W.F.P.) Division of F.R.I. Initially, petitioner chose his topic for Ph.D. as “Studies on the Chemical Nature of Celtis Australis with special reference to its Socio-Economic Importance in North West Himalaya”. Petitioner went to U.S.A. to undergo a specialized training by the Food and Agricultural Organization on the subject. On completion of his course, petitioner found that his technique would be very useful, if he apply for the pinus roxburghii in the Himalayan States. Therefore, he changed his topic to “Exploration of Bore Hole Method of Resin Tapping in Pinus Roxburghii Sarg” for his Ph.D. Course in 1998. Petitioner was only the Head of the Department and the Director of F.R.I. was someone else. He submitted his thesis on 18.12.2001 for pre thesis seminar and evaluation. He became the Director of the F.R.I. The file was submitted to the Director General ICFRE for appointment of examiners to evaluate his thesis. The Director General appointed two examiners. The Director General appointed Mr. M.C. Pande as a viva-voce examiner on 06.06.2002, who held the viva on 10.06.2002 in the presence of sixty Senior Scientists and Forests Officers. All the replies of the petitioner were to the utmost satisfaction of the examiner and all the Scholarly audience. The report of the examiner Mr. M.C. Pande shows that the petitioner w