Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr Lakshmi Sowjanya Bammidi vs Health And Family Welfare on 13 March, 2024
1
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00300/2022
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Lakshmi Sowjanya Bammidi,
W/o Ravi Prabhakar Hegde,
aged about 40 years,
R/at: No.55/1,
Second Floor,
15th Main, 1st Phase,
1st Stage,
Gokula, HMT Layout,
Mathikere,
Bengaluru - 560 054. ..Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri K. B. Muralidhar)
Vs.
1. The Director,
National Institute of Mental Health and
Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS),
Hosur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
2. Union of India by its
Secretary to Government (H&FW),
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
156-A, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Dr. Mathivanan Jothi,
S/o Karuppaiah Jothi,
Major,
Associate Professor,
2
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Department of Human Genetics,
National Institute of Mental Health and
Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Hosur Road,
Bengaluru- 560 029. ....Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri K. Prabhakar Rao for Respondent No. 1, Shri Vishnu Bhat,
Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondent No.2, Shri Skanda Kumar, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To call for documents / information from the 1st Respondent Institute relating to the selection process to the post of 'Assistant Professor' of Human Genetics in the years 2015 & 2016.
b) To declare that the selection of the 3rd Respondent to the post of 'Assistant Professor' of Human Genetics in pursuance of Notification No. NIMH/PER (6)/RECT/ADVT-4/2015-16 dated 05.01.2016 issued by the 1st Respondent as null & void.
c) To issue directions to the 1st Respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of 'Assistant Professor' of Human Genetics in NIMHANS vice 3rd Respondent with all consequential service and monetary benefits, in the interest of justice and equity in the eyes of law.
d) Pass such other order/s as this Tribunal deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. The applicant has also filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 260/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 2026 days in filing the present Application.
3. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings, are as follows:
a) The 1st Respondent Institute invited applications to fill up the faculty post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics, by issuing Notification No. NIMH/ PER (6)/ RECT/ ADVT- 6/2014-15 dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-A4). The educational qualifications prescribed for the post were Ph.D. / D.Sc. degree qualification in Life Sciences. The applicant applied for the said post. However, she was not shortlisted by the 1st Respondent for the personal interview, which was held during 2015.
b) The applicant learnt that the 3rd Respondent had also applied for the same post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. He was shortlisted for the interview and had attended the same. However, all the candidates, who had attended the interview, including the 3rd Respondent, were rejected during 2015 by the Selection/Interview Committee.
c) The 1st Respondent Institute again advertised the same faculty position for direct recruitment on 05.01.2016 vide Notification No. NIMH/ PER (6)/RECT/ADVT-4/2015-16 (Annexure-A5).
d) The 1st Respondent Institute this time narrowed down the educational requirement for the applicants under non-medical category to Ph.D. / 4 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench D.Sc. in Human Genetics. The Applicant, having the required educational qualifications and adequate research experience for the post, applied for the faculty post by submitting an application on 18.02.2016 (Annexure-A6) to the 1st Respondent Institute. The applicant was shortlisted by the 1st Respondent vide Interview Call Letter Ref. No: NIMH/PER (6)/RECT-DR/ ADVT-4/2016-17 dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure-A7). She was directed to appear for the personal interview on 09.10.2016.
e) The applicant appeared for the personal interview on 09.10.2016. The Selection/ Interview Committee consisted of two External Subject Experts namely; Prof. Paturu Kondaiah and Prof. P. B. Seshagiri, both from the Department of Molecular Reproduction, Development and Genetics, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore. According to the applicant, her performance was very good at the said personal interview. The 3rd Respondent, who was rejected during 2015 by the Selection/ Interview Committee for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics, had also applied during 2016. He was shortlisted by the 1st Respondent and attended the personal interview on 09.10.2016, and, this time, he was selected.
f) 1st Respondent has disclosed information in response to application filed by the applicant under RTI that the 3rd Respondent joined as Assistant Professor of Human Genetics on 05.01.2017 in the 1st Respondent-Institute. It is very strange to notice that a person who was rejected in the 2015 selection interview got selected just after a few 5 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench months in the year 2016 for the same post. The common External Subject Expert in the Selection/ Interview Committee for both 2015 and 2016 was Prof. Paturu Kondaiah. It is highly unlikely that the same External Subject Expert would take contradicting stand on the candidature of 3rd Respondent within a short time span of few months.
g) The 1st Respondent claims that the selection of faculty for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics was based on the Cadre and Recruitment Rules only during 2016. The interview was held for all the shortlisted candidates, including the 3rd Respondent, during 2016. The copy of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules provided by the 1st Respondent does not speak anything about the interview procedure.
h) The applicant learnt that the then Head of the Department of Human Genetics, Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope was the Ph.D., Guide of the 3rd Respondent at NIMHANS. As the Head of the Department Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope was in the selection committee during 2016 interview in which her Ph.D., student, the 3rd Respondent, got selected for the post. Therefore, the entire process of selection and appointment of the 3rd Respondent as Assistant Professor of Human Genetics is hit by lack of transparency, bias, prejudice, favouritism and nepotism and therefore liable to be set aside.
i) The Applicant requested for inspection of information/documents leading to the selection of the 3rd Respondent and the non-selection of the Applicant by filing several applications before the 1st Respondent 6 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Institute under the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 through her Advocate, Shri H. G. Swamy. The 1st Respondent Institute was unwilling to disclose the information/documents, specifically pertaining to the detailed list of marks given by the Selection Committee to each of the candidates who appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics during the year 2016; the complete details of Selection/ Interview Committee recommendations on the selection/ rejection of each candidate who appeared for the interview for the said post during 2016; and also the copy of the application submitted by the 3rd Respondent for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. The 1st Respondent Institute denied disclosure of most of the crucial information/ documents for inspection by citing untenable reasons that "the information sought is exempted under RTI Act, 2005 Sec. 8 (I) (d) (g)".
j) Even after the Order by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, the 1st Respondent Institute authorities did not provide the complete information and records for inspection to the Advocate of the applicant. The Advocate of the applicant filed a representation before the Registrar of the 1st Respondent Institute on 18.04.2018 (Annexure
-A17) narrating the facts pertaining to the non-disclosure of complete information by the 1st Respondent Institute even after the order by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The Advocate of the applicant filed RTI applications, first appeals, second appeals and complaints as well as representations to the 1st Respondent Institute 7 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench upon the instructions of the applicant vide letter dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure-A18). The 1st Respondent Institute did not respond to the representation filed on 18.04.2018 by the Advocate of the applicant. This gives compelling reason for doubting the intentions of the authorities concerned about the entire case of selection to the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics and to suspect that there is irregularity and illegality in selection process at the 1st Respondent Institute pertaining to the said selection.
k) The 1st Respondent Institute, again vide Notification dated 10.05.2018 invited applications for filling up the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. The applicant, having all the required educational qualifications and adequate research experience for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics, applied for the faculty post by submitting an application on 22.06.2018. The applicant was shortlisted by the 1st Respondent Institute vide Interview Call Letter dated 16.07.2018 to appear for the personal interview on 05.08.2018.
l) The Applicant appeared for the interview at the 1st Respondent Institute on 05.08.2018. According to the applicant, her performance was very good at the personal interview. After the said personal interview, the 1st Respondent Institute failed to announce the results of the interview. The applicant sent an e-mail on 20.08.2018 to the Director of the 1st Respondent Institute and requested to provide the information on the reasons for withholding the interview results for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. The applicant made several phone calls 8 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench to the office of the 1st Respondent Institute as well as to the Personal Section to check the status of the results. In spite of the repeated requests and reminders as well as phone calls made by the applicant, the 1st Respondent Institute failed to announce the result of the interview attended by the applicant in August, 2018.
m) Without announcing the result of the interviews held during August, 2018, and without even cancelling the previous notification, the 1st Respondent Institute again issued a fresh Notification dated 12.11.2018 inviting applications for filling up the same post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics.
n) The Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 27.02.2019 with Writ Petition No: WP 9956/2019 seeking appropriate directions and orders. The said Writ Petition was heard by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and on 19.06.2019, an Interim Order was also passed stipulating that the selection of the candidates pursuant to the notification is subject to the result of the Writ Petition. When the case was finally heard on 13.07.2021 (Annexure-A20), the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reserving liberty to the Applicant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
o) Applicant preferred O. A. No. 31/2022 before this Tribunal. The O.A. came up for Admission on 21.01.2022 (Annexure-A21). The counsel for the applicant requested to withdraw the O. A. with liberty to file a 9 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench fresh Application with better particulars. This Tribunal dismissed the O.A. with liberty as prayed for.
p) In the case of "Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors -
(2019) 18 SCC 246", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to information is a fundamental right and flows from Article 19 (1) (a), which guarantees the right to speech. This right has also been traced to Article 21 which concerns about right to life and liberty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically emphasizes on transparency in administration.
q) It is patently evident that there is reasonable likelihood of bias, lack of transparency and arbitrariness in the selection process to the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics in the 1st Respondent's Institute. It is well settled law that in the absence of complete transparency in the selection process to demonstrate nonexistence of arbitrariness and conformity with the duty of the State to afford equality of opportunity to all the candidates in the selection process, the rights under Article 14 and 16 would be rendered otiose.
r) The 1st Respondent Institute being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is not complying with transparency in appointment of persons for various posts in the Institute. The 1st Respondent Institute has been following "Pick and Choose" method and, therefore, by giving abundant scope for favouritism and nepotism in selection.
10
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
s) Under the facts and circumstance of the present case the 1st and 2nd Respondents should be directed to produce all records relating to the selection process resulting in the appointment of the 3rd Respondent to the said post, including crucial information/documents pertaining to the list of marks given by the Selection Committee to each of the candidates who appeared for the interview; the complete details of Selection/ Interview Committee recommendations on the selection/rejection of each candidate who appeared for interview for the said post during 2015 and 2016; and also the copy of the application submitted by the 3rd Respondent for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics in 2015 and 2016.
4. The Respondent No. 1 their filed his written statement wherein it has been averred as follows:
a) The 1st Respondent vide notification dated 05.01.2016 invited applications for various posts including that of Asst. Prof. of Human Genetics. The eligible candidates were called for interview on 09.10.2016. The said notification dated 05.01.2016 including attendance sheet, statement of marks obtained by the candidates and the proceedings of selection committee are already produced by the Respondent in the objection statement filed on behalf of the contesting respondent in OA No.299/2022. The applicant has secured 39 marks out of 100 and she was not selected.11
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) Again the applicant applied under notification dated 14.06.2017 and attended the interview on 31.08.2017. She has secured only 30 marks out of 100 marks and was not selected. Again, the applicant applied under notification dated 10.05.2018 and appeared in the interview held on 05.08.2018. She secured only 30 marks out of 100 marks and was not selected.
c) The Respondent institute has issued notification dated 12.11.2018 and 17.05.2019. The applicant has not applied in response to these above mentioned two notifications.
d) It is a settled law, that if the person has participated in the selection process for a particular post and if she/he is not selected for the same, the said person cannot challenge the selection process. The Applicant having failed in the selection process has no legal right to claim appointment for the post of Asst. Professor of Human Genetics.
e) The selection process for the post of any faculty position at this Institute is purely based on their performance before the standing selection committee consisting of members from different field and also external experts. The Institute does not send separate intimation to the unsuccessful candidates. However, the Institute answers the telephonic / written enquiry on the results of interview. All the telephonic enquires with regard to the result of recruitments of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics have been answered. As per the terms and condition of the recruitment notifications, the institute is at 12 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench liberty to fill or not to fill any of the post. No separate intimation letters are sent to the unsuccessful candidates.
f) The applicant has no legal right to question either the formation of selection committee or the process of selection. Since her performance in the interview is not up to the mark the selection committee consisting of experts has not recommended the applicant to the post of Asst. Prof. of Human Genetics.
g) The entire selection process was transparent and the same was done in accordance with the NIMHANS Act, 2013. The selection committee has not recommended the applicant for the post of Asst. Professor of Human Genetics during the years 2016, 2017 & 2018.
h) The Applicant's allegations that C & R rules have been modified to favour a particular person is false and incorrect. The applicant has no legal right to claim for appointment when she is not selected in the interview. The applicant is eligible to apply for the post even after the amendment of C & R Rules. But mere applying for the post and participating in the selection process before the selection committee does not entitle the applicant to question the selection process when she was not selected.
i) The applicant sought information and documents under the RTI Act, 2005. All her RTI applications were addressed by the Respondent Institute and her RTI appeal was dismissed by the competent authority under the RTI Act on 27.02.2018. The selection process for the post of 13 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench any faculty positions in the Respondent Institute is purely based on the performance before the standing selection committee consisting of members from different field and external subject experts.
j) There is no procedure in the Respondent institute to send separate intimation to the unsuccessful candidates, who have appeared before the standing selection committee. Sometimes, the Institute answers, telephonic enquiries with regard to the results of interview. In the case of the applicant, the Institute has answered telephonic enquiries.
k) The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Sarojakumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom & Others reported in 2017(9) SCC Page No.478 has held that "A person who has taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same, after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection".
l) The cadre and recruitment (in short C & R) Rules contain conditions with regard to the method of recruitment and eligibility for such recruitment. The scope of C & R Rules is only to ascertain the candidate's eligibility for recruitment and does not specify the procedures/ process of selection.
m) The recruitment and service conditions of the appointed employees are also governed by the same Act. Under the Provisions of this Act, a standing selection committee (SSC) is constituted by the Central 14 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The SSC constituted under the provisions of NIMHANS Act, 2013 conducts interview and submit its recommendations for appointment of faculty positions. The SSC is constituted by the Mo H & FW consisting of external members and distinguished faculties. Further, as per regulation number 23 (2) of NIMHANS Act, 2013, no business shall be transacted by the SSC unless at least one third of the constituted members of the committee are present. As per regulation number 23 (5) of NIMHANS Act, 2013, the SSC is empowered to appoint all the faculty posts filled through direct recruitment or under APS.
n) The Institute scrutinized the candidate's application in accordance with C & R Rules. As already stated, the C & R lays minimum required conditions for the purposes of eligibility of that post. As per Standard procedure, NIMHANS does not communicate any official letter nor does it publish notification of unsuccessful candidates. However, their telephonic enquiries are never discouraged. The successful candidates are officially intimated to appear for a medical board and subsequently, on being found fit for government duty appointment orders are issued.
o) In order to avoid ambiguity and for more clarity and clear understanding of aspirants, a term 'medical' and 'non-medical' were added to the C & R rules by the competent Authority. In true principle, no actual changes were made to C & R Rules which affects a candidate's eligibility conditions. The applicant herself was eligible in 15 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench old C & R rules. She was also eligible for the same post after modifying the C & R Rules.
p) The selection committee not only rejected the applicant's case but also others who did not perform well in the interview. The 3rd Respondent was selected based on his performance and the recommendations of the selection committee. The contesting respondent denies specifically that Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope had favoured the Respondent No.3 in the selection process.
q) The Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 18 SCC Page 246, Anjali Bhardwaj & Others V/s. Union of India and others has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case of the applicant. The applicant having not been selected in the interview had sought information relating to the selection process through the procedure mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005. The competent authority of the institute found no merit in the representation given by the applicant under the RTI Act, 2005 and rejected the same.
5. The Respondent No. 3 has filed his reply wherein it has been averred as follows:
a) Reliefs sought in the above application is barred by the contemplated laws. The said alleged claims are beyond the period of limitation and hence the alleged reliefs cannot be granted in view of such bar. 16
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) The Respondent No.3 was always a bright student. Respondent No. 3 chose to pursue to study molecular biology and had obtained first class from University of Madras. He has subsequently, graduated with a Degree in Master of Science in Molecular Biology and Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) from the esteemed Respondent No.1 Institute.
c) The Respondent No.1 vide its notification on 18.12.2014 had called for the applications for a faculty post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. The applicant was not shortlisted for personal interview and, therefore, it was clear that the applicant had failed to reach the standard set by the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 was shortlisted since he had satisfied the criteria set by the Respondent No. 1 Institution. The admission made by the applicant in her averment is clear that the selection was based on the performance in the personal interview. The rejection of Respondent No.3 in the selection process of 2015 was beyond the control and scope of Respondent No.3.
d) It is denied that Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope had favoured the Respondent No.3 in the selection process in 2016 and the applicant is put to strict proof of the same. The merit and performance of the interview of candidates depends on the Respondent No.1 verdict and interview pattern and, therefore, applicant's assumption or her understanding of the performances would not have any implication on the outcome nor would the Respondent No.1 base their verdict on Applicant's understanding of her own performance. Respondent No. 1 had already 17 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench been shortlisted in the recruitment process on the basis of Cadre and Recruitment Rules and such rules are final. The Respondent No.3 begs to submit to this Tribunal that the Respondent No. 3 had no role in being selected nor the selection process is unlawful as alleged by the applicant.
6. In her rejoinder to the reply statements, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The 1st Respondent, NIMHANS, herein filed the Objection Statement to the said O.A.No.299/2022 providing incomplete documents pertaining to the selection of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics held during 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 at the 1st Respondent Institute.
b) The 1st Respondent Institute submitted an Objection Statement to this Original Application No. 300/2022 on 31.07.2023 and adopted the selection related documents already provided in the reply to O. A. No. 299 of 2022. Plain reading of the said documents produced by the 1st Respondent Institute pertaining to the faculty selections in 2016 and the subsequent years apparently show discrepancies which result in further mounting of suspicion about the selection of the 3rd Respondent as Assistant Professor of Human Genetics at the 1st Respondent Institute.
c) Careful observation of the documents provided by the 1st Respondent pertaining to the selection of faculty in Human Genetics at the First Respondent Institute during the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, reflect the following serious discrepancies:18
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench i. The faculty selection documents, the statement of marks provided by 1st Respondent depict the compiled total marks given by the two subject experts who took the interview of the shortlisted candidates for the post of Assistant Professor of Human Genetics. It is apparent from the provided documents that the external subject experts who exclusively contributed for the total marks in interview procedures to select the candidate for the post mandatorily signed on all the pages which depict the compiled total marks given to each of the interview attended candidates during the years 2017 and 2018. But, only in the 2016 selection documents, the signature of one of the two external subject experts, Dr. P. B. Sheshagiri who also gave marks to each of the candidates in the interviews is completely missing in the most crucial page which depicts the total marks given to the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent. Further awarding of '85 marks' in the last column of said Statement differs from the writing of numbers to the Applicant and other candidates. This gives suspicion that 1st Respondent Institute has favoured the 3rd Respondent in selecting him as Assistant Professor. ii. The faculty selection documents provided by 1st Respondent depict the fact that all the Standing Selection Committee members who were present for the selection procedures during the years 2017 and 2018 mandatorily signed both on the Proceedings of the Selection.19
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench iii. Suspiciously, only in the 2016 selection document, two of the Standing Selection Committee members, namely, Dr. K. V. R. Sastry and Dr. Smita Deshpande signed only on the Proceedings of the Selection Committee document, but not on the Statement of compiled total marks given document, though their names are printed on this specific page.
7. In his additional reply to the rejoinder, the Respondent No.3 has averred as follows:
a) The allegations concerning with signatures are pertaining to the years 2017 & 2018 but the Respondent No.3 was recruited in the year 2016.
Hence the allegation made by the applicant may not be considered nor required for adjudication of the alleged dispute. The Annexure furnished along with the Rejoinder clearly showcases that the Respondent No.3 had received the highest marks and the Applicant had received one of the lowest total marks and hence the Respondent No.3 was selected and recruited.
b) The allegation that Dr. P.B. Sheshagiri had his signature missing is irrelevant as he is only a member and the same is evident even in the selection process of 2017 & 2018. The practice adopted by the Respondent No.1 cannot be challenged belatedly in a selection process application. The Applicant had secured low scores in the years 2016, 2017 & 2018. The applicant without any proof or reason has instituted the above application.
20
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) The applicant is trying to misrepresent this Tribunal as the signatures of standing committee is only affixed where required and not as alleged by the applicant on a specific page because even in the selection of 2017, 2018 and 2019 there exists no such signatures as alleged by the applicant as witnessed in the documents furnished by the Applicant. There rises no suspicion as alleged by the Applicant and the Applicant is put to strict proof of the same.
d) The Applicant being aggrieved by his non selection, cannot allege non-
compliance of procedures. The Applicant had herself admitted that the selection would be based on the performance of the candidates in the interview and non-performance of the Applicant cannot be contributed to any non-compliance of selection process.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
9. In the present case, the applicant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Human Genetics in the 1st Respondent's Institute. She applied for the post initially in the year 2014 where she was not shortlisted. Subsequently, she had again applied for the same post for the 2nd time in response to the advertisement dated 05.01.2016. This time, she was short listed and had appeared in the interview along with the 3rd Respondent. However, she was not selected whereas the 3rd Respondent was selected.
10. From a perusal of the original documents submitted by the Respondent No. 1, the applicant secured 39 marks out of 100 in the interview whereas 21 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Respondent No. 3 who was the selected candidate had secured 85 marks out of 100. A perusal of the original record furnished by the Respondent No. 1 pertaining to the selection in 2016, indicates that out of 12 shortlisted candidates, 11 candidates had appeared in the interview for the post and 01 person had remain absent. Besides the selected candidate (Respondent No:
3) there were two other candidates who obtained 80 marks out of 100 & 70 marks out of 100 respectively. These two were kept in the waiting list.
11. It is apparent from these documents that the candidate, contrary to her claim of having performed well in the interview, did not obtain sufficient marks to the considered for the post, compared to the other candidates. In fact, she had obtained the 2nd lowest marks out of the eleven candidates who had appeared in the interview.
12. The allegations made by the applicant, with regard to alleged tampering in the marks or the fact that some of the members of the selection committee had not signed on all the pages of the statement of marks, cannot be countenanced. It is apparent from the record that the final proceedings of the Selection Committee have been signed by all the Members except one namely Dr. Vedantam RajShekhar. Out of 12 Members of the Selection Committee headed by Dr. S.K. Pandya as 'Chairman', 11 Members have signed the proceedings of the Selection Committee which, after considering the requirement for the post and on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates at the interview, had recommended the name of Respondent No. 3 for appointment, and kept the names of two other candidates as waitlisted 22 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench candidates. There appears to be no reason to suspect any mala fide or wrong doing in the selection process, from a perusal of the original record.
13. The fact that one of the members of the selection committee Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope was the PhD. Guide of Respondent No. 3, would not materially affect the entire selection process since she was only one of the members of the selection committee which comprised of 12 prominent scientists. The allegation, that one of the members of this committee could have influenced the entire selection committee, cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the performance of the applicant is far below the marks obtained by the other candidates. She had obtained the 2nd lowest marks out of the 11 candidates who had appeared in the interview. Having once participated in the process unsuccessfully, it is not appropriate on the part of the applicant to turn around alleging mala fide in the selection process.
14. It is observed that even in the subsequent two selection processes where the applicant had appeared for interview, she had failed to obtain adequate marks in the interview process and was not selected. In the selection process for the year 2017, the applicant had secured 30 marks out of 100 whereas the successful candidate had secured 60 marks out of 100. Out of 14 persons invited for the interview, of which 03 were absent and 11 were present, the applicant had secured the least marks out of these 11 candidates. In the selection process held in 2018, the applicant had again secured 30 marks. This time 6 candidates had been called for interview out of which 05 candidates had appeared in the interview. However, based on the marks obtained by all the candidates, no person was recommended for the 23 OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench selection. Dr. Rajalakshmi Gope, was not a member of the selection committee in both these two subsequent selection processes.
15. Keeping the above facts in view, there is no ground for the applicant to challenge the process of selection or to allege bias, favouritism or prejudice against her. The present OA, therefore, being devoid of any merit whatsoever, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present OA is dismissed.
16. However, it is, noticed that the respondents have stated, in their reply, that they do not, as a matter of practice, declare the results of their selection processes in public domain, nor do they separately intimate the results of the selection process to all the candidates, except for informing the successful candidate only. This is not an appropriate practice in matters of public appointments where applications have been publicly invited through an open advertisement from eligible candidates and interviews for selection have been held. It is important to declare the results/final list of the selected candidates, by the respondent institute, in public domain, preferably on their website, for information of all concerned, including the unsuccessful candidates. The institution should refrain from its current practice of separately intimating the selected candidate only, and not declaring the results in public domain for the information of all concerned, forcing the unsuccessful candidates to seek such information from the Institute telephonically or under the RTI Act.
24
OA.No.170/300/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
17. This lack of transparency results in suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates relating to the entire selection process. The Respondent Institute is, therefore, directed to declare the final results of all their selection processes in public domain, for all future selections, preferably on their website, after the selection has been finalised by them.
18. The present OA is disposed of with the above directions. The applicant had filed an MA No: 260/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 2026 days in filing the present Original Application. Keeping in view the dismissal/ disposal of the present OA, with the aforementioned directions, the said MA 260/2022 also stands disposed of.
19. However, there shall be no order so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/