Selection criteria for recruitment must remain consistent with the advertisement and cannot be altered mid-process, as established in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

JUDGMENT :

(SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.)

These intra-Court appeals are directed against order dated 28.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.31494 of 2016. W.A.Nos.898 and 889 of 2023 have been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 respectively challenging the findings that went against them in the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Writ Court.

2. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court till the Supreme Court. There is a chequered history of litigation, which can be briefly stated as under:

Facts:

3. On 21.01.2016, advertisement Notification No.1/2016 was issued inviting candidature for the post of Assistant Director (Plant Health Management). The National Institute for Plant Health Management (‘NIPHM’) Service Bye-Laws, 2008 (‘Bye Laws’), lays down the service conditions and the same can be treated as recruitment rules for the aforesaid post. The last date for submission of applications was 31.05.2016. On 16.06.2016, written test was conducted for the said post and on the same day, the Selection Committee convened a meeting and conducted interviews and power point presentation for the candidates. On 23.06.2016, Dr. Edpuganti Sree Latha/respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition was selected and appointed by the Department. Aggrieved by the said appointment, Mrs. Neelam Lavanya/writ petitioner filed O.A.No.721 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 31.08.2016 for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, she filed W.P.No.31494 of 2016 before this Court and on 17.10.2016, this Court granted interim suspension on appointment of respondent No.3. On 28.08.2023, the said Writ Petition was decided by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the selection process and the appointment of respondent No.3. The learned Single Judge instead of directing to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner has ordered for issuance of notification afresh as per relevant criteria.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent No.3. These Writ Appeals were decided by common judgment of this Court dated 12.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, respondent No.3 filed Civil Appeal No.13521 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, which was decided on 21.11.2024. The Supreme Court set aside the common judgment dated 12.09.2023 and remitted back the matter to this Court for fresh adjudication of the Writ Appeals. Thus, these Writ Appeals are now listed for hearing.

Contention of the writ petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.898 of 2023:

5. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.898 of 2023 submits that the Bye- Laws are silent about criteria for selection. The said criteria were accordingly laid down in advertisement Notification No.1/2016. The advertisement provides ‘procedure for selection’ and makes it clear that selection to the post in question will be based on written test, power point presentation and interview. Thus, the marks have been given to the candidates only under these heads. By placing reliance on the marks prepared by the official respondents, it is urged that if these three heads are taken into account, the writ petitioner secured 78.05 and respondent No.3 secured only 73.75 marks.

6. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the Selection Committee without there being any jurisdiction and authority, arbitrarily modified selection criteria by adding weightage to (i) M.Sc./Ph.D. qualification, (ii) publications, recognition and additional experience and (iii) additional training programmes. This modification by the Selection Committee amounts to change of rules of game in the midst of the game. Reliance is placed on the recent Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , 2024 SCC Online SC 3184 .

7. By placing relian