Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr Harikrishnan R vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... on 22 April, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00311/2023
Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
Dr. Harikrishnan R., MD (General Medicine),
DM (Neurology), Stroke Fellowship (SCTIMST),
Aged 36 years, S/o. K.G. Ramachandran Nair,
Post Doctoral Fellow in Electroencephalography,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011,
Residing at Darsana House, Alummoodu Junction,
Kuttemperoor PO, Mannar,
Alappuzha district - 689623. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. Aditya Thejus Krishnan and
Mr. P.B. Krishnan)
Versus
1. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Represented by the Director, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for
Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695011.
2. The Director, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences
and Technology, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011.
3. Senior Staff Selection Committee, represented by its Chairman,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30'
2
4. Head of the Department, Department of Neurology,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011.
5. Dr. Kiren George Koshy, Post Doctoral Fellow in Epilepsy,
Department of Neurology,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram, - 695011.
6. Dr. Saranya B. Gomathy, Assistant Professor (Adhoc),
Department of Neurology,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011.
7. Dr. Asish Vijayaraghavan, Assistant Professor (Adhoc),
Department of Neurology,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,
Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr. V. Sajith Kumar (R1-4) and
Mr. Shafik M. Abdulkhadir (R5&7)]
This Original Application having been heard on 04.03.2026, the
Tribunal on 22.04.2026 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The sole applicant challenges the inclusion of respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Annexure A1 rank list to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology Department, by the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 3 "the Institute" for brevity) and the selection process leading to it, pursuant to Annexure A6 notification.
2. According to the applicant, he passed MBBS in 1st rank in 2010 from the Mahatma Gandhi University. Thereafter, he completed MD in General Medicine in 2016. He completed post-doctoral course in Medicine with speciality in neurology in the above institute and DM in Neurology evidenced by Annexure A2. Post-doctoral fellowship in stroke was also completed in the Institute.
3. In the meanwhile, notification dated 20.9.2021 was issued by the Institute, inviting applications for temporary appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology for six months. The applicant responded and he was ranked first in the list evidenced by Annexure A3(a). He was offered the post of Professor, Neurology for a period of six months. It was extended by another six months evidenced by Annexure A5 experience certificate. In January, 2023 he joined another post-doctoral fellowship programme in Electroencephalography (EEG) for one year at the Institute. While so, Annexure A6 notification dated 12.4.2023 was issued by the Institute, inviting applications for permanent appointment to Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 4 various posts offered by the notification. The applicant responded to the post of Assistant Professor, Neurology. As per the notification, there were 2 UR vacancies, 1 SC vacancy and 1 ST vacancy. It is understood that 17 persons were shortlisted and they were directed to appear for an interview. There was no written examination prior to the interview. Annexure A7 is the call letter for interview issued to the applicant. He attended. Thereafter, Annexure A1 rank list was published dated 30.6.2023. The applicant herein was not included in the rank list. The 7th respondent was ranked 1st, the 5th respondent ranked 2nd and the 6th respondent ranked 3rd. The 6th respondent was included in the waiting list.
4. Aggrieved by the above rank list, to extent of overlooking the applicant herein, he has approached this Tribunal, inter alia contending that the selection process was not in tune with the notification and the SOP, and that the selected candidate did not have the requisite qualification.
5. The main reliefs sought are as under:
"b) Declare that the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) conducted in violation of prescribed method of selection mentioned in Annexure A6 notification and the law laid down by the Apex Court is illegal and set aside the same;
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30'
5
c) Declare that Annexure A1 rank list formed on the basis of
interview alone is illegal as it is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court and quash the same;
d) Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) following the prescribed method of selection provided in Annexure A6 notification, in tune with the law of the land."
6. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and respondents 5 and 7 filed separate reply statements. A rejoinder was filed. Since the contentions set up by the respondents will be dealt with in detail while analyzing each contention set up by the applicant, the pleadings of the respondents revealed in the reply statements are not reproduced.
7. Heard Mr. Aditya Thejus Krishnan for the applicant. Mr. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the Institute and Mr. Shafiq M. Abdulkhadir, the learned counsel for the party respondents. Examined the records.
8. Assailing the selection process, the learned counsel for the applicant advanced three specific grounds. It was firstly contended that the selection was conducted in breach of the process laid down by Annexure A6 notification and the standard operational procedure accompanying the notification. It was secondly contended that the selection of a candidate Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 6 who did not possess the requisite eligibility as prescribed in the notification was illegal. Thirdly, the selection process was not proper and the applicants were not properly assessed and evaluated by the interview board.
9. Both the applicant and respondents Nos. 5 and 7 have projected their educational qualifications to contend that they were all highly qualified and that they satisfied the requisite eligibility criteria. Since the comparative evaluation of their qualifications and experience is not within our domain, we do not venture to go in to that in detail, except observing that all the parties are highly qualified with exceptional academic background and experienced.
10. Advancing the first ground, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to ground (B) in the Original Application wherein it was affirmed that the respondents had conducted interview as the sole criteria for selection in violation of the selection process detailed in Annexure A6 notification. Clause 10 of Annexure A6 refers to the selection process as follows:
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 7 "Eligible candidates have to appear for an interview. A written test (MCQ) may be conducted only for screening purpose depending on the number of candidates for a particular post. In case the case of academic posts written examination will be conducted if the number of shortlisted candidates exceeds 12. Marks obtained in the written examination will be of a qualifying nature alone and will not be considered for the final ranking......."
The relevant part of SOP produced along with Annexure A6 specifically refers as follows:
"A written test (MCQ) may be conducted only for screening purpose depending on the number of candidates for a particular post. In the case of Academic posts (Assistant Professors/Scientists/Engineers D and above posts) written examination will be conducted if the number of shortlisted candidates exceeds 12........."
11. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 17 candidates were shortlisted and all of them were directed to appear for the interview. Written examination was not conducted, though the number of short-listed candidates exceeded 12. This, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, was clearly illegal and contrary to the specific provision in the notification and SOP. It was contended that thus the respondents changed the Rule of the game after the game had started.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 8
12. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply had specifically answered this allegation. It was contended that the allegation that the Institute failed to conduct written examination on shortlisting 17 candidates was highly misleading. It was stated that the policy adopted by the Institute prescribed written examination for shortlisting candidates, if the application exceeds 12 against one vacancy. In the present case, notification was issued to fill up 4 posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor, Neurology. 19 candidates applied for the posts. But no SC/ST candidates had applied. After scrutiny of applications, 17 candidates were shortlisted for the interview against 2 vacancies of UR, but only 12 candidates appeared for the interview. The examination was prescribed merely to screen out excess candidates, in case applications against 1 vacancy exceeded 12. Since only 17 candidates were shortlisted against 2 vacancies, there was no impropriety as alleged by the applicant.
13. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 relied on a circular dated 18.8.2016 issued by the Director of the Institute based on Annexure R1(a) resolution No. 9 dated 30.7.2016 of the Governing Body. In Annexure R1(a) it was specifically stated that the General Body had resolved to "conduct an Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 9 internal screening if the number of shortlisted candidates for the mentioned academic posts exceeded 12. In case, the number of eligible candidates for a vacancy to the said posts fell between 9 and 12, the desirable criteria (if specified) would be used to filter the top 8 candidates for interview". The general guidelines as appended to Annexure R1(a) clearly states that "with respect to each vacancy, the written examination would be conducted only if the number of eligible candidates is more than 12". It is seen that the above order was marked for publication in the notice boards and in the Institute website.
14. Same contention was advanced by respondents Nos. 5 and 7 in their reply statement. They also took the stand that written examination was warranted only if the number of candidates exceeded 12, as against each vacancy. Annexure R1(a) was relied on by the respondents Nos. 5 and 7.
15. It is true that as per the above resolution written examination will be conducted only if the number of candidates exceeded 12 as against each vacancy. Though it was vehemently contended that such a candidate was not specifically carried forward in the notification by stating that it will be reckoned against each vacancy. However, this is impliedly conveyed in Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 10 Annexure A6 itself. The sentence in clause 10 of Annexure A6 "a written test (MCQ) will be conducted only for screening purpose depending on the number of candidates for a particular post" (emphasis supplied) read with next sentence clearly shows that the stipulations regarding conducting of examination was 12 candidates against, each vacancy and not otherwise.
16. To supplement his above contention, the learned counsel for the applicant advanced two ancillary contentions. Firstly, it was contended that interview cannot be the sole criteria for selection as held by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [(1981) 1 SCC 722]. Secondly that once the game has started, the Rules of the game cannot be changed as held in Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51].
17. Regarding the adoption of interview as the sole criteria for conducting a selection process, both the learned counsel for respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta v. State of UP [(2000) 7 SCC 719]. In Ajay Hasia's case (supra), the five Judges Bench of Supreme Court, dealing with the admission to the educational Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 11 institutions had held that it will always be advisable to have a written examination preceding the interview, to avoid malpractices in the selection process. It was held that selection process by interview alone will be highly subjective and will not result in the achieved purpose. However, the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court had reiterated that the said proposition of law can have little application in the case of appointment to higher post in service. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta's case (supra), holding that selection through interviews are valid, especially for positions necessitating mature personalities and administrative acumen. The second limb of the argument based on Maharashtra SRTC's case (supra) is also not sustainable, since there was no change of Rule after game has started. The correct provision is evidenced from Annexure R1(a), decision of the General Body. Hence, the Rule of game has not been changed. In the light of the above settled legal proposition, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.
18. Advancing the next contention, the learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to sub clause (b) of clause 12 of Annexure A6. As per the said clause, experience wherever required should be gained after Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 12 acquiring the prescribed essential qualification. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the 5th and 6th respondents did not satisfy this requirement. It was specifically clarified that the qualification/experience of the 7th respondent was not challenged as he had acquired sufficient experience after acquiring the DM. It was contended that the 5th respondent completed his DM course in neurology only in 2022. The notification was on 12.4.2023. It was stated that post DM experience in Trivandrum Medical College does not meet the desired subspeciality experience as per notification. The 5 months period of fellowship in the Institute should not be counted as desirable experience as Annexure A6 notification mentions fellowship for a year alone can be considered as experience. Consequently, the 5th respondent did not have any meaningful experience in the desired field as on the date of notification, it was argued.
19. As per Annexure A6 notification, the essential qualification and experience for Assistant Professor (Neurology) was just after DM in the specialty or its equivalent qualification in the case of three years course or one year teaching/research experience after DM in the specialty or its equivalent qualification, in the case of two years course or one year Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 13 teaching/research experience after direct DM/MCH in the specialty or its equivalent qualification or one year teaching/research experience after direct DM course. The desirable qualification prescribed was training/experience in either epilepsy, movement disorder, neuromuscular or neuro critical care. Clause 12 of Annexure A6 provided the important note. Sub clause (b) in that provided as follows:
"Experience wherever prescribed means experience gained AFTER acquiring the prescribed essential qualification."
20. Relying on it, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that prescription of experience cannot be a simple formality, but it was intended to be a very serious affair after acquisition of DM. Admittedly, the quality of experience after DM will be far better than the experience prior to DM or MD. The required experience was prescribed at serial No. 5 as training/experience in either epilepsy, movement disorder, neuromuscular or neuro critical care. Based on it, it was submitted that prescription of desirable qualification cannot be treated as an empty formality but it was really a desirable qualification to hold the post under consideration.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 14
21. In answer to it the 5th respondent in his joint reply along with the 7th respondent had specifically stated that he had completed rigorous DM Neurology course between 2019 and 2022 with wide exposures in all sub- specialties in Neurology and in Neuro Emergency Care in the largest neurological casualty in India. During DM course he completed NIHSS certification. After passing DM in Neurology he worked as Senior Resident (Post DM) in the Department of Neurology, Government Medical College, Trivandrum from 12.8.2022 to 31.12.2022 where he was involved in clinical, teaching and research activities. In January, 2023 after rigorous process involving submission of a research proposal he was selected for the post-doctoral fellowship in epilepsy.
22. However, it is pertinent to note that the 5th respondent had undergone three-year DM course and necessarily the 1st essential qualification as prescribed against the post of Assistant Professor (Neurology) as sought in Annexure A6 will apply. To that extent the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that being the essential qualification the desirable qualification is inconsequential. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has also admitted in their reply statement that all the four had completed their DM from reputed institutions. Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 15
23. Advancing the 3rd ground for challenge, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the procedure in the interview with reference to Annexure A8. Annexure A8 are the copies of evaluation sheets in relation to the applicant herein, obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, by reply dated 8.9.2023. Annexure A9 is the corresponding answer sheets of one Dr. Sesh another contestant. The learned counsel referring to Annexure A8 contended that marks were awarded to the candidates by 9 evaluators on the basis of six parameters mentioned therein. It was contended by the learned counsel that though total marks were out of 100, the split of that mark under various six sub- heads have not been provided. It was stated that factors like teaching and training experience, publications, etc. were considered by the selection committee before preparing Annexure A1 list. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that from Annexure A8 evaluation sheet it could be seen that 8 evaluators have provided exactly same marks to the applicant under various sub-heads with the same mark under each criteria. Only one had a slight different method of marking. This, according to the learned counsel was contrary to the SOP in the light of the specific provision that "in order to ensure fair and independent assessment, each of the 6 members Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 16 would grade the performance of the candidate in the interview on a separate scoring/evaluation sheet and would decide separately on the candidate's eligibility".
24. It was contended by the learned counsel that the marks awarded to the applicant would show that there was absolutely no independent evaluation or assessment by each evaluator. According to the applicant, it appeared that all evaluators gave same marks to one candidate under each head, without independent evaluation. In fact, the final average marks under various sub-heads and common average marks given by all 9 examiners were suspiciously same, it was contended. The applicant had given in tabulation sheets the marks obtained by him on the basis of information gathered by him under the Right to Information Act. Based on it, it was contended that the selection process was biased and tainted with malafides.
25. The applicant has, in a tabular form given the marks awarded by each evaluator under all the six headings. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, although such marks are given, except evaluator number 2 all others have given same marks uniformly under each Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 17 category. According to the learned counsel, this shows that all have followed practically a common practice which appears to be suspicious and artificial and the evaluation by each evaluator did not appear to independently done, it was contended. It was contended that there was some bias in the evaluation process and marks were pre-determined and blindly granted to the candidates without consideration of their actual merit and or evaluation criteria.
26. The applicant further relied on Annexure A9 information received by one Dr. Sesh S. under the RTI in relation to the marks awarded to him. It was contended that two evaluators have not evaluated the marks of the Dr. Sesh as evident from Annexure A9. MA No. 32 of 2024 was filed seeking a prayer to accept Annexure A9. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the original evaluation sheets were produced in sealed cover. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was strange that in the case of all other candidate, 9 evaluators have evaluated, whereas in the case of one candidate i.e. Dr. Sesh, only 7 evaluators had evaluated.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 18
27. In answer to the above allegation the 2nd additional reply statement was filed contending that attempts are being made to tarnish the evaluation process done by a prestigious institution. It was stated that order under RTI Act is appealable and that channel of procedure ought to have been taken by the applicant.
28. However, the entire evaluation file has been produced and is available before this Tribunal. For the purpose of considering the above specific arguments, we have opened the sealed cover and examined the records. What emerges is that in the case of Dr. S. Sesh, 9 evaluators have interviewed and assessed him and specific marks have been assigned by each individual evaluator. This clearly indicates that there may be some mistake in supplying the information under the Right to Information Act. Regarding all other candidates also all the evaluators have independently evaluated. In the case of all candidates all the evaluators have almost uniformly assigned marks to candidates, except evaluator No. 2 who has distinctively marked from other evaluators. However, in the case of each evaluator it appears that there is consistency in giving the marks. Of course, there are minor difference under specific heads which has tilted the scale in favour of the selected candidates.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 19
29. Though the learned counsel for the applicant, with all his highly persuasive skills, had tried to convince us that the uniformity in evaluating the marks indicates non-application of mind and mechanical evaluation by all the evaluators, we are not inclined to accept that contention. This all the more so since, uniformity in evaluation by all the evaluators though the 2nd evaluator himself had an individual uniformity slightly distinct from the markings from other evaluators, the uniform pattern indicates consensus of mind of each evaluator. When such highly competent evaluators evaluate candidates with high educational qualification, there is every likelihood of such uniformity in most parameters except where a particular candidate outshines all other candidates which tilts the scale in his favour. We should not forget the competency and experience of highly qualified evaluators. Further, it is not for the Court to conduct such a detailed roving inquiry, regarding the evaluation process, especially when in the case of a highly contested evaluation process, when almost all the candidates are equally competent, we have to repose confidence on the integrity of such evaluators. This cannot be substituted by a judicial examination.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 20
30. Having considered the entire facts we are convinced that no sustainable grounds have been made out for interference. The Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30'
21
Original Application No. 180/00311/2023
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of the rank list No. P&A.II/479/Direct
Recct.(SSSC)/SCTIMST/2023 dated 30.6.2023.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the degree certificate of DM in
Neurology issued by the SCTIMST.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the certificate No. 2021/PDF-N/01 issued
by the SCTIMST evidencing completion of the one
year Post Doctoral Fellowship in stroke.
Annexure A3(a)- True copy of the rank list for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Adhoc)/Adhoc Consultant in Neurology dated 13.10.2021.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the relieving certificate No. P&A/III/PF3805/12/SCTIMST/2023 dated 2.1.2023. Annexure A5 - True copy of the experience certificate dated 2.5.2023 issued by the Head, Department of Neurology, for the work done in the epilepsy subspeciality.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the notification No. Advt. No. P&A.II/26/SSSC/SCTIMST/2023 dated 12.4.2023.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the provisional admit card/call letter for
interview with file No.
P&A.II/479/SSSC/SCTIMST/2023.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the question and answer furnished under
the RTI Act along with the evaluation sheets.
Annexure A9 - True copy of the RTI request No.
CPIO/140/SCTMS/R/E/23/00088 dated 11.12.2023.
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30' 22 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the No. P&A.1/50/SCTIMST/2016 dated 18.8.2016 issued by the Director of the Institute based on resolution of Governing Body resolution No. 9 dated 30.7.2016.
Annexure R5(a)- True copy of the notification F. No. 14-1/2019- Estt.(FC) dated 3.11.2021 issued by the Sr. AO, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Annexure R5(b)- True copy of the notification No. JIP/Admn.4(FW)/1(11)/Rectt./2023 dated 29.7.2023 issued by the Director, JIPMER, Puducherry.
Annexure R5(c)- True copy of the list of candidates for interview for R-
5(b) notification.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.04.22 12:47:42+05'30'