Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr P Basker vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 27 October, 2025
1 OA No.310/00380/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00380/2025
Dated this the 27th day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
Dr. P. Basker, Ph.D.,
Senior Entomologist (Retired),
No.69, New Friends Nagar,
Thottapattu Village,
Nathapattu Post,
Cuddalore Taluk & District. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s M. Vijayakumar
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by The Director,
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
Vector Control Research Centre( VCRC).
Indira Nagar, Medical Complex,
Puducherry.
2.The Director General,
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No.4911,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
3. The Additional Director General,
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No.4911,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
2 OA No.310/00380/2025
4. Dr. Rohit Sharma,
Consultant (Scientific),
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
Vector Control Research Centre( VCRC).
Indira Nagar, Medical Complex,
Puducherry.
5. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Kaushik,
Consultant (Scientific),
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
Vector Control Research Centre( VCRC).
Indira Nagar, Medical Complex,
Puducherry. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
3 OA No.310/00380/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Challenging the selection of the 4 th and 5th respondent to the post of Consultant (Scientific) on contractual basis, the applicant has filed the OA to set aside the selection order of the 1 st respondent, dated 11.04.2025 and for a direction to the respondents to conduct fresh and fair selection to the said post in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The applicant is a Post Graduate and Ph.D., in Zoology and Specialized in Entomology and has worked as Senior Entomologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Government of Tamil Nadu during the period from 1995 to 2018 with Grade 23 Level 10. After retirement, the applicant has worked as Guest Faculty in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Central University of Tamil Nadu, Thiruvarur during the period 2019 to 2020. He also worked as Consultant Entomologist in the Division of Zoonotic Diseases Programme (DZDP) at the National Centre for Diseases Control (NCDC) under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi during the period of 2020-2021 and 2022-2023. Pursuant to the advertisement, dated 28.02.2025 issued by the 4 OA No.310/00380/2025 1st respondent, the Applicant has applied for selection to the post of Consultant (Scientific) ICMR-VCRC in the 1 st respondent's office. The interview was conducted on 20.03.2025. The applicant was made ineligible by the 1st respondent erroneously on the ground that the grade 23 is equivalent to Level-6-8. The mistake has been committed by the 1 st respondent purposely with ulterior reasons in order to select the respondents 4 & 5. The 1st respondent has violated procedural norms and Recruitment Rules applicable for the said post. At the intervention of the applicant before the 2 & 3 respondents, the 1 st respondents have rectified the mistake and invited the applicant to participate in the special interview.
Due to the complaint about the violation preferred by the applicant, the selection process has been further extended for the period of 20 days from the actual schedule fixed by the 1st respondent. In the meantime, the 1st respondent has selected the respondents 4 & 5 but not published. The special interview was conducted as an eye wash and after the special interview, the 1st respondent has issued the selection order, selecting the respondents 4 & 5. Therefore, the applicant has challenged the entire selection process and the selection of the respondents 4 & 5 in the present OA.
5 OA No.310/00380/2025
3. The respondents have contested the application by filing a reply statement.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order, dated 11.04.2025, issued by the 1st respondent selecting respondents 4 and 5 for the post of Consultant (Scientific) on a contractual basis at ICMR-VCRC, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. He submits that the selection was made without due consideration of more meritorious candidates. He further argued that the entire selection process lacked transparency, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, and was in violation of the Recruitment Rules applicable to ICMR- VCRC. Accordingly, he submits that the selection of respondents 4 and 5 liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel further contended that the selection of respondents 4 and 5 was biased, marked by procedural irregularities, and influenced by nepotism, favouritism, and political pressure. He asserted that the special interview conducted for the applicant was merely a formality, arranged only after the applicant's intervention, and that the final selection had already been predetermined in favour of respondents 4 and 5. 6 OA No.310/00380/2025
6. He emphasized that the conduct of the 1st respondent in this process was improper and that the entire selection procedure, including the appointment of respondents 4 and 5, is vitiated and legally untenable. Therefore, he prayed for the relief sought in the present Original Application.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the applicant and placed strong reliance on the averments contained in the reply statement. He primarily contended that the selection process for the post of Consultant (Scientific) at ICMR- VCRC was conducted strictly on the basis of merit, as assessed by a duly constituted Expert Committee. The evaluation process considered the candidates' academic qualifications, research experience, and overall suitability with reference to the institute's current and projected scientific needs. He further submitted that the selection procedure was carried out with due diligence, transparency, and in full compliance with the applicable rules and guidelines. The presence of external experts on the selection committee ensured the impartiality and credibility of the process. Therefore, the applicant's allegation that the selection was arbitrary, illegal, or manipulated is wholly without merit.
7 OA No.310/00380/2025
8. It was also contended that the committee thoroughly examined multiple aspects while selecting candidates, including domain expertise, relevance to the institute's ongoing and future projects, and overall fitness for the role. He highlighted that even a candidate with prior experience at the Director level, and possessing extensive expertise in research design and execution, was not selected. Moreover, another candidate with over three decades of service at the Centre also participated in the interview process, and yet no objections were raised concerning the transparency or fairness of the procedure. Hence, the applicant's claim that his non- selection was due to arbitrariness, bias, or external influence stands unsubstantiated and is devoid of factual or legal basis.
9. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that candidates who willingly participate in a selection process and are subsequently not selected cannot later challenge the process or its outcome. A candidate who takes part in the selection with full knowledge cannot turn around and question the fairness of the procedure after being unsuccessful. Therefore, he prayed that the Original Application be dismissed as devoid of merit.
8 OA No.310/00380/2025
10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the advertisement, dated 28.02.2025 for the engagement of two Consultants (Scientific), the eligibility criteria included a "Desirable" qualification, which reads as follows (at Page 14):
'Desirable: Candidates possessing a Ph.D. in a relevant field and 8-10 years of postdoctoral experience will be preferred.' He drew our attention to this clause and submitted that, as per the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2024, no such "Desirable" qualification was prescribed. Therefore, according to him, the respondents have violated the selection process by including an additional criterion not found in the OM. However, we find this contention to be wholly untenable. The Office Memorandum, dated 26.11.2024 merely serves as a general guideline for the engagement of Consultants and Young Professionals in ICMR. It does not have mandatory application to the specific recruitment in question, nor does it override the authority of the concerned institute to prescribe additional qualifications in the advertisement. Accordingly, the applicant 9 OA No.310/00380/2025 has failed to demonstrate how the selection process was vitiated or violated.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant also sought to challenge the eligibility of the 4th respondent on the ground that his educational qualification does not fall within the specified domain. He referred to the advertisement, which defines "Life Sciences" to include disciplines such as Biology, Botany, Zoology, Microbiology, Genetics, etc., and submitted that the 4th respondent holds a Master of Science Degree in Marine Biology, which, according to him, is not relevant to the post. However, upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the 4th respondent pursued his degree through a regular course from the Cochin University of Science and Technology and has also submitted an equivalence certificate supporting the relevance of her qualification. This equivalence was duly accepted by the Screening Committee during the selection process. Therefore, we find no merit in the applicant's objection, and no valid ground has been established to question the eligibility or selection of the 4th respondent.
13. Upon examination of the records, we find that the applicant was initially declared ineligible for the said post, as per the Notice dated 10 OA No.310/00380/2025 18.03.2025 (Page 27, Annexure A-3), on the ground that his Grade was 23, which is equivalent to Pay Level 6 and did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria. However, the applicant subsequently submitted a certificate issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, dated 05.04.2025, certifying that his actual Pay Level was Level 10. Upon verification and rectification of the earlier discrepancy, the 1st respondent called the applicant for the interview scheduled on 09.04.2025, which the applicant duly attended and participated in. Only thereafter, by order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure A- 10, Page 38), the final selection list was published, wherein respondents 4 and 5 were selected for the post. In light of the above sequence of events, the applicant's contention that the interview was a mere formality or an "eye wash" lacks substance and is not acceptable.
14. It is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a recruitment process and is unsuccessful cannot later challenge the selection process on the ground that the criteria adopted were improper or illegal. In this context, reliance be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal & Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others [(1995) 3 SCC 486] and Dhananjay Malik & Others vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others [2008 AIR SCW 2158], 11 OA No.310/00380/2025 wherein it was held that a candidate who participates in the selection process without objection and is not selected cannot subsequently challenge the fairness or validity of the process merely because the outcome was not in his favour.
15. In its recent decision dated, 21.08.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharma & Ratanlal Vs The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another, in Civil Appeal Nos 5051/2023 & 5052/2023, held that candidates who participate in a selection process and are subsequently declared unsuccessful cannot later challenge the advertisement or the selection methodology. Candidates cannot challenge the selection process after consciously participating in the interview, the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below "16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
12 OA No.310/00380/2025
17. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgements and orders passed by the High Court. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly".
16. In view of the above circumstances, and in light of the consistent rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court on challenges raised by unsuccessful candidates in matters of selection and appointment, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The interim order earlier passed by this Tribunal stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SISIR KUMAR RATHO) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
27. 10.2025
mas