Judicial review should not interfere with the selection process conducted by an expert body like the UPSC unless there is clear evidence of bias or arbitrariness, as the court cannot substitute its own expertise for that of the expert body.

This application having been heard on 19th February, 2026 the Tribunal on 5th March, 2026 delivered the following :

O R D E R

HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Briefly stated the facts are under – the applicant was initially appointed as Processing Technologist in scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 on 25.03.1994 in National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT). On 01.08.2011 he was promoted as Deputy Director (Processing and Marketing) in scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- and on 25.03.2014 he was granted financial upgradation in Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-. On 31.10.2016 consequent upon the retirement of the then Director, NIFPHATT, he was entrusted with the charge of the post of Director with effect from 01.11.2016 which he held for some length of time. On 11.08.2016 the respondents had issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Director, NIFPHATT for which the applicant finding himself being fully eligible to be considered applied. In 2017 the respondents selected and appointed Shri.Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey as Director on deputation though he lacked the prescribed qualifications and experience, it is alleged.

2. Being aggrieved by such an appointment the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.757/2017 which was disposed of by a detailed order dated 30.08.2018 allowing the application quashing the appointment of Shri.Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey and directed the respondents to recommence the selection process in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Following the order of this Tribunal Shri.Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey was repatriated to his parent organization in 2018 and the applicant assumed charge of the post of Director, NIFPHATT. On 08.03.2019 the UPSC had challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing O.P.(CAT) No.28/2019. The said petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself by judgment dated 08.03.2019. It was also challenged by the UPSC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(Civil) Dairy No.26197/2019 which was dismissed by order dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter on 21.09.2019 in the light of the aforesaid orders, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the respondents requesting to be considered and promoted as Director, NIFPHATT. The same is produced as Annexure A-5. However, the respondents issued a fresh notice in the Employment News inviting application to the post of Director, NIFPHATT, Kochi on deputation including short term contract plus promotion basis in terms of Annexure A-6. 13.02.2020 was the last date for receipt of the application under Annexure A-6.

3. It is the allegation of the applicant that the application of the 4th respondent was not duly received within the stipulated period. On 07.10.2021 after a period of two years the 1st respondent issued letters to the applicant and 4th respondent shortlisting them for consideration and directing appearance for a personal talk before the UPSC. This is produced as Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8. The applicant appeared before the UPSC on 10.11.2021. It is his contention that he alone satisfied the prescribed qualifications and experience. On 17.11.2021 the applicant filed this O.A apprehending that the 4th respondent may be considered favourably notwithstanding his ineligibility.

4. The main contentions taken by the applicant in this O.A are two fold. One, that he