Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr Jai Singh Meena vs Department Of Fisheries on 5 March, 2026
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00624/2021
Thursday this the 5th day of March 2026
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr.Jai Singh Meena,
Aged 53 years,
S/o.Sri.M.L.Meena,
Deputy Director (Processing & Marketing),
(Presently holding charge as Director),
National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology & Training,
Kochi - 682 016.
Residing at Qtr.No.4, NIFPHATT Officers Living Centre,
Kochi - 682 016. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala.T.Gopi)
versus
1. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying,
Department of Fisheries, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
represented by the Secretary, Dholpur House,
Shajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069.
3. The Director,
National Institute of Fisheries
Post Harvest Technology & Training,
Kochi - 682 016.
A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30'
-2-
4. Dr.Shine Kumar.C.S.,
Deputy Director (MS),
Marine Products Export Development Authority,
27/1162, P.B.No.4272, Panampilly Avenue,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi - 682 036.
5. The Chairman,
Marine Products Export Development Authority,
Regional Division, MPEDA House,
4th Floor, Panampilly Avenue,
Panampilly Nagar P.O.,
Kochi - 682 036, Kerala. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC [R1, 3 & 5]
& Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SPC [R-2])
This application having been heard on 19 th February, 2026 the
Tribunal on 5th March, 2026 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Briefly stated the facts are as 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 A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -3- 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 A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -4- 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 4 th respondent was not duly received within the stipulated period. On 07.10.2021 after a period of two years the 1 st 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 A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -5- satisfied the prescribed qualifications and experience. On 17.11.2021 the applicant filed this O.A apprehending that the 4 th 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 alone fulfills all the requisite qualifications for the post of Director, NIFPHATT and is, therefore, entitled to be considered and promoted as Director, NIFPHATT, which post he has been holding since 2016. The second contention taken by the applicant is that the 4th respondent is not eligible to be considered for appointment by deputation/promotion to the post of Director, NIFPHATT given that he had not submitted his application in time as stipulated in Annexure A-6 notification and therefore his candidature ought to have been rejected at the threshold. He also submitted that the 4 th respondent does not have the experience in fish processing or Fish Processing Technology nor does he have the five years administrative experience in a managerial capacity in a concern dealing with fish processing or Fish Processing Technology and, therefore, the consideration of the 4 th respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.
A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -6-
5. The applicant filed an amended O.A on the issuance of Annexure A-9 order dated 02.12.2021 appointing the 4 th respondent as Director, NIFPHATT on deputation basis during the pendency of the O.A and contended that the conduct of the 1 st respondent in issuing Annexure A-1 is contumacious. Annexure A-9 is in excess of jurisdiction and is arbitrary and discriminatory. He seeks for a declaration that the 4th respondent is not eligible to be considered for appointment by deputation by promotion to the post of Director, NIFPHATT in terms of Annexure A-1 Recruitment Rules read with Annexure A-6 notification and for a direction to the respondents to consider and promote him as Director, NIFPHATT, Kochi forthwith with all the consequential benefits including the seniority and other benefits with retrospective effect.
6. Fundamentally there are two areas of dispute here. One was regarding the experience criteria which is listed in the notification ie., seven years of managerial experience in fish processing or Fish Processing Technology with 5 years of man management experience. The allegation of the applicant is that the experience of the 4 th respondent does not extend to fish process or Fish Processing Technology. The second area of dispute is the delay in conducting the recruitment process A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -7- from the issue of advertisement in 2019 to the conduct of interview in 2021. It is also the contention of the applicant that an interim stay was sought in this O.A to which time was granted to file a reply statement and in the meantime Annexure A-9 order was issued on 02.12.2021. The tenure of 4th respondent was completed in 2024 and he has been given extension in the post. An M.A.No.180/863/2021 is filed by the applicant to keep in abeyance Annexure A-9 provisionally and subject to the final outcome of the O.A.
7. It is noticed that a short reply statement has been filed on 13.12.2021 submitting that the incumbent has already joined. Hence, no interim relief had been granted. It has been an allegation of the applicant that Annexure R-5 (a) communication was dated 10.08.2020 ie., six months after the last date. The experience certificate was sought and the same was sent as per the email communication received on the next date. Hence, it is argued that the 4 th respondent's application was not completed in all respect as on 13.02.2020 which is the condition of the notification. Hence, the application ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself. The applicant goes by Annexures R-5 and by the dates submitted in the reply statement to argue that whether 4 th respondent had A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -8- submitted his application on 31.01.2020 and it was forwarded to the concerned officer on 10.02.2020 and email along with requisite documents had been sent on 13.02.2020 as a matter of abundant caution to clear that the application had not been received as per the condition of the notification.
8. The respondent, UPSC, had argued that as per their own norms they take the date of submission of the application by the concerned individual to be the relevant date so as to ensure that the administrative and postal delays do not impinge upon the rights of the individuals. Hence, 4th respondent has submitted his application well before the 13.02.2020 and the application was considered as within time. It is also submitted by the UPSC that this was a time of COVID and additional clarifications and processing of papers was considerably delayed due to lockdown and hence the delay which is argued by the applicant cannot be taken on the facts and circumstances of the time when the applications were being processed. It is also submitted by the UPSC that it is within its right to seek additional clarifications regarding completeness of the applications submitted by either party. In addition, it is submitted by UPSC that Annexure R-1(a) in the reply statement clearly indicates that A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -9- the 4th respondent was eminently qualified for the post as he has done his doctorate thesis in fish processing. Secondly, as far as the managerial experience is concerned it is very clear that the functions discharged by him in his post as Deputy Director, MPEDA required him to have considerable experience in fish processing and certification. The UPSC has also submitted that it has been held by a number of judicial pronouncements as citd here that as long as there is no allegation of bias or arbitrariness by the UPSC, the process of recruitment should not be interfered with without sufficient cause. The judgments are as follows -
(i) Union of India & Anr. vs. A.K.Narula (2007)11 SCC 10.
(ii) Secretary (Health) Department of Health & FW & Anr. vs. Dr.Anita Puri & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 282.
9. It is also been held in several judgments that it is not open to the judicial fora to substitute its expertise to that of an expert body constituted to evaluate the fitness or otherwise of candidates who are being selected. The judgments are as follows -
(i) Union Public Service Commission vs. M.Sathiya Priya & Ors., (2018) 15 SCC 796.
(ii) Union Public Service Commission vs. L.P.Tiwari & Ors., (2006) 12 SCC 317.
A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -10-
10. It was argued that it is for the UPSC to ascertain the relative merit of the applicants and to determine whether or not the application was received in time. Hence any clarifications sought prior to the date of interview including clarifications regarding experience certification would only enable better decision making and could, therefore, not have a bearing upon the time line of applications.
11. Given that if an expert body has conducted a selection process based on parameters which was universally applied and has determined the suitability of 4th respondent based on the evaluation of qualifications and given that there is no allegation of bias or favouritism against the body conducting the selection process and given that the consistent stand of the Courts have been that interference in a selection process conducted by an expert body is not fair or within the realm of judicial scrutiny except where the process itself is questioned, the O.A and M.A.No.863/2021 fails and both are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 5th day of March, 2026) V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -11- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00624/2021
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Ministry of Agriculture, National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training, Director, Recruitment Rules, 2009 issued under G.S.R.154 dated 04.11.2009.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the order in O.A.No.757/2017 dated 30.08.2018 rendered by this Tribunal.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(CAT) No.28/2019 dated 08.03.2019.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the order in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No.26197/2019 dated 09.08.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the representation submitted by the applicant to the 1st and 2nd respondents dated 21.09.2019.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the notification published in the Employment News bearing No.5-14/2019-Admn.V, 14-20 December, 2019.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the letter bearing No.5-14/2019- Admn.V dated 07.10.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent addressed to the applicant.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the letter bearing No.5-14/2019-Admn V dated 07.10.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent addressed to the 3 rd respondent.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the O.M.F.No.5-15/2019-Admn.-V dated 02.12.2021.
10. Annexure MA-1 - A copy of the Office Memorandum F.No.5- 14/2019-Admn.V dated 02.12.2021 issued by the 1st respondent.
11. Annexure R-2(a) - A copy of the O.M dated 17.06.2010 issued by the DoPT.
A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30' -12-
12. Annexure R-2(b) - A copy of the Recruitment Rules, 2009 dated 14.11.2009 for the post of Director.
13. Annexure R-2(c) - A copy of the letter dated 10.08.2020.
14. Annexure R-2(d) - A copy of the advertisement in the Employment News dated 14-20 December 2019.
15. Annexure R-2(e) - A copy of the letter dated 10.08.2020.
16. Annexure R-2(f) - A copy of the Department of Fisheries was advertised in the Employment News dated 14-20 December 2019.
17. Annexure R-5(a) - A copy of the experience certificate of Dr.C.S.Shine Kumar given as per letter No.PERS-PF/0830/1/2017 dated 10.08.2020.
18. Annexure R-5(b) - A copy of the email dated 13.02.2020 forwarding the 4th respondent's application along with requisite documents to the 1st respondent.
_______________________________ A S Peethambaran 2026.03.05 17:02:13+05'30'