Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ks J Kiran Mayi vs National Institute Of Nutrition on 12 December, 2023
OA No.21/187/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: AT HYDERABAD
OA/021/0187/2016
Date of CAV : 16.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
Dr. K.S.J. Kiranmanyi,
D/o. Dr. K.K. Sayi Prasad,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Nutritionist,
R/o. H. No. 1-8/4, Prasanth Nagar,
Opp. Madhava Reddy Function Hall,
Behind Kothapet Fruit Market,
Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. J. Sudheer)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Beside AIIMS, New Delhi - 110029.
3. The Director,
National Institute of Nutrition,
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Jamai Osmania PO, Hyderabad - 7, Telangana State.
4. Dr. Paras Sharma,
Assistant Professor,
Amity Institute of Bio Technology (AIB),
Kant Kalwar, NH - 11C,
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 303002.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Mr. M.C. Jacob, for R-4)
---
Page 1 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr.Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member) The OA is filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"...to call for the records pertaining to the selection of the 4 th respondent to the post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutritionist) in pursuance of the notification No. NIN/Advt/Sci/1/2012-13 dated 02.01.2013 and declare the action on the part of the respondent authorities in selecting the 4th respondent to the post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutritionist) in respondent No.3 organization as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and set aside the selection of the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondent authorities to select the applicant to the post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutritionist) in 3rd respondent‟s organization.."
2. It is the case of the applicant that the 3rd respondent issued notification dt. 02.01.2013 for filling up one post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutritionist) under UR category in the Pay Band-3 of Rs.15,600-39,100 with GP of Rs.6,600/-. The essential qualifications for the said post, prescribed in the notification are:
(i) First Class Master‟s Degree in Food Science/ Nutrition or equivalent degree from a recognized University or Second Class Master Degree with Ph.D. degree in relevant subject from a recognized University;
(ii) Four years R & D experience in the related subject after obtaining essential qualification (s) (1) above.
The desirable qualifications prescribed are:
(i) Doctorate degree in related subject from a recognized University.
(ii) Additional Post-Doctoral research/ teaching experience in relevant subjects in recognized Institute (s).Page 2 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
(iii) Knowledge of computer applications.
The job requirements of the said post are:
i) To independently carry out clinical/ laboratory/ community studies in Nutrition.
ii) Should be able to perform nutrition counseling.
iii) Should collaborate with studies of other divisions and provide expertise.
The applicant, having possessed the above essential and desirable qualifications and being eligible for the selection, applied for the said post. She passed MS in Nutritional Sciences, Oklahoma State University, USA in 2006 with more than 7 years of experience after obtaining MS Degree. She was also awarded Ph.D. degree in Nutritional Sciences, Oklahoma State University, USA in 2011. From 2006-2011, she worked as Graduate Teaching Assistant in Nutrition Department, Oklahoma State University, USA. In addition, she also possesses P.G. Diploma in Clinical Nutrition; Diploma in Nutrition and Health Education; MA in Women‟s Studies.
3. It is stated by the applicant that notification was issued on 01.01.2013 and screening committee shortlisted candidates after delay of 3 years. However, the ICMR took up re-screening of the applications and upon re-screening, 12 candidates were shortlisted including the applicant for conducting interview on 22.12.2015 at ICMR, New Delhi. The applicant appeared for the interview on the said date. The respondents Page 3 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 selected the 4th respondent in February 2016 and appointment order was issued to him without publishing the result.
4. It is the contention of the applicant that the 4 th respondent does not have the requisite qualifications and experience, specified in the notification. It is further contended by the applicant that the 4 th respondent was earlier omitted by the screening committee as he did not possess the required qualifications. However, he was shortlisted upon re-screening at the instance of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 4th respondent passed M.Sc. and completed his Ph.D. in Food Technology from Guru Nanakdev University, Amritsar and was awarded PhD only on 03.01.2013 i.e. next date of the publication of the notification, whereas, the last date for receipt of application was 03.04.2013. The 4th respondent is presently working as Asst. Professor in Amity University, Jaipur and he is teaching the subjects of Processing of Food and Vegetables, Quality Control, Principles of Food Processing and his Research Interests are Functional and Nutraceutical Foods, Food Rheology, Value addition in cereals and his Teaching interests are Cereal Processing Technology, Fruits and Vegetables process, Food Processing and Preservation. Thus, the research of the 4th respondent primarily focuses on manufacturing and agricultural techniques. The Nutrition and Food Technology are two different areas. Thus, it is specifically contended by the applicant that the 4 th respondent does not fulfill the required qualifications and experience for the post notified. Page 4 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
5. It is further stated that the applicant has carried out various clinical and animal studies as well as community studies exclusively in the field of nutrition and she also worked for two years in NIN, Hyderabad and obtained experience on the subject related to nutrition, whereas, the 4 th respondent‟s expertise is confined to Food Technology only and he has not done even a single study on Nutrition. Thus, the respondents have deviated from recruitment rules as prescribed in Health Research Scientists Cadres Rules, 2007 of ICMR and the eligibility criteria while selecting 4 th respondent. The applicant cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohd Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 1130 of 2009 dt.20.02.2009, wherein it has been held that "...the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/ qualification in the selection process during its midstream." It is further held that "once it is most satisfactorily established that the selection committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned get vitiated." It is further contended by the applicant that unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement, the selection committee cannot relax the minimum required qualification.
6. The respondents 2 & 3 filed reply statement, wherein, it is stated that, in response to the subject notification, 122 applications were received and after screening them, 12 candidates were shortlisted and they were called for interview and out of 12 candidates, only 10 candidates including the applicant attended the interview and based on the recommendations of the Page 5 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 Selection Committee, the 2nd respondent selected the 4th respondent for the lone post of Scientist C after completing all formalities including character and antecedents‟ verification and medical examination. Pursuant to the order issued by the 2nd respondent dt. 06.05.2016, the 3rd respondent issued consequential order dt. 09.05.2016 and the applicant joined the post and he is working as such.
7. It is stated by the respondents that the contention of the applicant that the qualifications possessed by the 4th respondent are not matching to the advertisement is incorrect as the selected candidate is having Post Graduation with Food Technology and Ph.D. in Food Science, teaching experience since 2006 and he was awarded Senior Research Fellowship by Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). He has published 20 publications in this field. As such, he fulfilled all the essential and desirable qualifications as per the notification. It is stated that the 4th respondent obtained his Ph.D. on 31st October, 2012, but not on 03.01.2023, as mentioned by the applicant.
8. It is further stated by the respondents that the selection committee consisting of subject experts considered the eligibility criteria and recommended the candidature of respondent No.4 as equivalent degree holders can also apply as per the notification. The contents of the course is more important than the nomenclature of the Degree. Though the nomenclature of nutrition, Food Science and Food Technology are different, they all come under the domain of food science/ nutrition science. Food Technology deals with Food Science including Nutrition and without nutrition as a core subject, there is no relevance for Food Science and the Page 6 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 applicant sought to give a picture as if Food Science and Food Technology deal with marketing of food, which is misconceived. The respondents further stated that there is a clause in the advertisement that the age and qualification can be relaxed in deserving cases as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of Health Scientist Cadre of 5 ICMR 2007 under Rule 14 and notes 1 and 2 of Schedule - III. Thus, the entire exercise of the selection committee was to pick up the most suitable person for the post advertised among the candidates responded to the notification even by relaxing certain parameters, if warranted. It is further stated that since the experience of the applicant in the 3rd respondent Institute and her qualifications were also assessed by the expert committee, she cannot have any grievance on this count and it is not mandatory to select a person working in the very same Institute.
9. The respondents also stated that the 3rd respondent Institute has multidisciplinary departments ranging from basic nutrition research to Epidemiological research and the selected candidates can be utilized in any department of the Institute and his expertise can be useful in research activities carried out in the Institute. It is further stated that nutrition science being connected to other areas of Food Science, Food Technology, the applicant cannot compartmentalize its scope. The members of the Committee are experts from different Institutions and based on their recommendations, the 4th respondent has been appointed. There is no deviation from the prescribed qualifications by the Selection Committee as the applicant as well as the 4th respondent along with others were screened by the authorities and the entire exercise has been done in a transparent Page 7 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 manner. The decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sharab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University is not relevant to the instant case since the facts and circumstances are different. Though the applicant claims to have obtained Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences against desirable qualification, the certificated issued by Oklahoma University, USA indicates the subject as "Human Environmental Sciences". Thus, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.
10. The 4th respondent filed separate reply statement, wherein, he states that 12 candidates including him were shortlisted for interview and pursuant to thereto, he was issued with order 09.05.2016 and he joined the 3rd respondent on 09.05.2016 and continuing as such. He further submits that he is having qualification of Doctorate in Food Science & Technology and Nutrition is also part of Food Science and he also studied „Human Nutrition‟ as a core subject during his M.Sc. course. He also worked on improvement of nutritional profile of commonly consumed foods. He further stated that he qualified in National Eligibility Test (NET) in Food Science & Technology; possesses Post Graduation in Food Technology. He has teaching experience and he has been awarded Senior Research Fellowship by the CSIR, Junior Research Fellowship and Senior Research Fellowship by Guru Nanak Dev University. He had published 20 publications in high impact factor journals in the field of Nutrition and Food Science and thus, he has fulfilled all the essential and desirable qualifications as per the notification. He was awarded Cash prize by the Amity University for submission of novel project to DBT-GoI (Scheme - Food and Nutrition). He also submitted several projects as Principal Page 8 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 Investigator and one of them submitted to ICMR (Under stream „Nutrition‟) entitled „Combating malnutrition and autoimmune diseases by incorporating process millets in human food". He has more than 4 years of teaching experience on the subject of Nutrition & Food Science at Under Graduate and Post Graduate level. He also stated that the applicant is not alleging any mala fides on the selection committee or its constitution. It is stated that Food Technology is an applied branch of Food Science and without understanding/ passing subject of Food Science, Degree in Food Technology cannot be awarded. Nutritional value of the food is an essential study in the Food Science & Technology. It is also stated that there is no violation rules and the applicant cannot compare the post in the 3 rd respondent institute with the other institutes. The 4th respondent states that he is fully eligible and qualified for the post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutrition) and there is no irregularity in his selection.
11. The applicant filed rejoinders to the reply statements filed by the respondents.
12. Written arguments have been filed by the applicant and the respondent No.4.
13. In the written arguments, the applicant contends that the very impugned notification dt. 02.01.2013 issued is contrary to the Health Research Scientists Cadre Rules, 2007 of ICMR inasmuch as the essential qualifications mentioned in the said Rules and in the "impugned notification" are at variance. According to him, the Rules prescribe essential qualification in the „relevant subject‟ whereas in the notification, it Page 9 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 is prescribed as „equivalent degree‟. Except the respondent No.4, no Food Technologist has ever been appointed against the post of Nutritionist in NIN so far.
14. The 4th respondent in his written submissions denied the submissions of the applicant. He has stated that, the applicant responded to the notification, knowing fully well about the essential and desirable qualifications prescribed without any objection at any point of time and even according to the applicant, he himself represented to the 2nd respondent to complete the selection process based on the advertisement issued, at an early date since there was delay of two years in constituting the selection committee and now, as he is not selected, he is challenging the selection and this approach of the applicant is not permissible, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr v. K. Sivasubramaniyam & Ors in Civil Appeal no. 6465 of 2015 [(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 164]. The applicant is estopped from challenging either the notification dt. 02.01.2013 or the selection process, which culminated in appointing the 4th respondent vide order dt.09.05.2016, at this point of time. The 4th respondent also cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 wherein it is held that prescription of qualification for the post is left with the employer and the Courts cannot, in the garb of judicial review, sit over judgment of appointing authority to decide what is best for employer and interpret conditions of advertisement, contrary to plain language of the same. Page 10 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant strongly argued that the applicant is fully eligible to be appointed as she possesses the qualifications prescribed in the notification, whereas, the 4th respondent does not possess the qualifications prescribed and thus, the appointment of the 4 th respondent is liable to be set aside and the applicant has to be appointed to the post of Scientist „C‟ (Nutritionist). On the contrary, it is argued by the respondents counsel that the Selection Committee has not merely seen the certificate, but also considered the contents of the course and after measuring the ability to handle the post, he has been selected. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee is an expert body on the subject of selection of a suitable persons to the post notified and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the selection made by the Expert body duly following the prescribed procedure.
17. As seen from the prayer sought in the OA, extracted supra, there is no challenge to the notification in the OA and the main challenge in the OA is only to the selection of the 4th respondent. But, the applicant tries to improve his case in the written submissions as if he is challenging the notification itself and uses the phrase „impugned notification‟. This is incorrect. The applicant filed some portion of the HRSC Rules, 2007 relating to Scientist „C‟ and on a perusal of said Rules, "equivalent degree"
"Relevant subjects" are used. Therefore, the assertion of the applicant that though the "equivalent degree" is not provided in the relevant Rules, the same is mentioned in the notification, is incorrect. Having participated in Page 11 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 the selection process, he cannot be permitted to agitate against the selection process. Law is well settled on this score. As pointed out by the respondent No.4, the applicant is also not alleging malafides on the part of the Selection Committee.
18. We have also gone through the record produced by the respondents carefully. It is seen from the record that out of 122 applications received, 31 candidates were recommended by the Screening Committee, which met on 01.05.2014 and the Committee awarded marks to 31 candidates, wherein the applicant got 2.5 marks, whereas, the 4th respondent got 18 marks and stood at Sl. No.1. Out of 31 candidates, 12 were called for personal discussion on 22.12.2015, on which date, the Selection Committee awarded marks to 12 candidates. The applicant was awarded 22 marks and the 4th respondent was awarded 32 marks out of 50 marks by the Selection Committee. Thus, 4th respondent got 50 marks from out of 100 marks and stood at Sl. No.1, whereas the applicant got 24.5 marks. Thus, the 4th respondent, being 1st meritorious candidate, has been selected and appointed to the post with the approval of the competent authority.
19. Further, as seen from the record, the Selection Committee is composed of 7 members, out of which 6 members, who are Professors/ Former Directors/ Scientist-G & Director, etc. from different premier Institutes and the 7th member is the Director-in-Charge of the 3rd respondent Institute. The Selection Committee is empowered to choose the meritorious candidate among the eligible candidates and mere possessing minimum qualification by itself would not give any guarantee of selection to any candidate. The 4th respondent was issued with Order of appointment dt. Page 12 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016 09.05.2016 and he joined the Institute and he has been working since then. It cannot be said that the selection committee has deviated or changed the criteria. The applicant never objected to the criteria or procedure prescribed during the entire process of selection. Only on finding that she has not been selected, she challenged the selection of the applicant, which is not permissible.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant applied in response to the notification dt. 01.02.2013 and participated in the selection process and on being not successful in the selection, she turned around and questioned the selection of the 4 th respondent. He cited the judgment of the Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors in Civil Appeal No.6465 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2015, [(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 164 = (2016) 1 SCC 454). We have gone through the said judgment and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
"19. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post.
20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
21. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but Page 13 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:-
"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal‟s case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:
"It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."
22. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:-
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would Page 14 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
23. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:-
"We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner‟s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
24. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under:-
"In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
21. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357, a three Judge Bench, held that the appellants therein were estopped from turning around and challenging the selection once they were declared unsuccessful. The Court held as under:-
"17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 :: (2011) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] , candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were Page 15 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that:
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur [Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] , it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 274], this Court held that:
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
22. It is settled position of law that the Tribunal cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the selection committee as observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6057 of 2010: Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors, decided on 29th July, 2010, by referring to the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others, (1990) 1 SCC 305, and held as under:-
37. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305, the court in somewhat similar matter observed thus:
"...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Page 16 of 18 OA No.21/187/2016 Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
23. Recently, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in its judgment reported in 2023 (1) SLR 689 (Del) - Karan Singh Meena v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, following the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, held that the petitioner therein, having participated in the selection process, cannot challenge the same after he has been declared unsuccessful. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court is as under:
"25. It is also relevant to emphasise that the petitioner had not challenged the scheme of the examination at the material time. The petitioner had participated in the examination unreservedly. It is well settled that it is not open for a candidate, who participated in the selection process, to subsequently challenge the same once he has been declared unsuccessful. The law on this subject is discussed comprehensively in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors (supra).xxx"
24. In view of the above position of law, it is clear that the applicant having participated in the selection process without any protest, and only on being declared unsuccessful in the selection, he has resorted to filing this OA challenging the selection of the 4th respondent and the same is not permissible as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the OA and the same is liable to be dismissed. Page 17 of 18
OA No.21/187/2016
25. In the result, the OA is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 18 of 18