Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Pooja G vs National Institute Of Mental Health And ... on 24 March, 2026
1
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00561/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 05.03.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 24.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA ..MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Smt. Pooja G
W/o, Naveen Kumar B G
Aged about 24 years
R/at, No. 158, 13th Cross,
Ganesh Farm, KEB Road,
Anjana Nagar, Maagadi Main Road,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore-91.
2. Udaya Kumar
S/o, Mariswamaiah
Aged about 28 years
R/at, Guddadahalli Village,
Hagala Halli Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk
And District- 562159
3. Shivarajkumar
S/o, Srinivas N
Aged about 32 years
R/at, No. 23, Kanthayyanapalya,
Kaggalipura Post, Bangalore-82
4. Lepakshi L
W/o, Mahesha
Aged about 31 years
R/at, No. 28, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross,
Somwshwaranagara,
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Jayanagara I Block, Bangalore-11
5. Avinash N
S/o, Nagaraja N
Aged about 28 years
R/at, Saptagiri Nilaya,
Gajanuru Agrahara,
Gajanuru, Shivamogga-577202
6. Suresh Kumar M
S/o, Mahesh M
Aged about 29 years
R/at, No. 21, 3rd Cross,
Near Anjaneya Temple, Byrasandra,
Jayanagar, Ist Block East,
Bengaluru South- 560011
7. Miss Pallavi L
D/o, Lakshman Kumar
Aged about 27 years
R/at, No. 39, 4th Cross,
Chikka Adugodi
Brundavana Nagar, Bangalore South
Tavarekere-29
8. Miss Nethravathi J
D/o, Jogaiah M S
Aged about 31 years
R/at, No. 70/14, 10th Cross
1st main Road
Kempegowda Industrial Estate
Kamakshipalya
Bengaluru-79
9. Miss Radha R
D/o, Raghavendra
Aged about 38 years
R/at, No.3, Type II Block-I
NIMHANS Quarters
Byrasandra Campus
Bengaluru-56011
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
3
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10.Sri.Prasanna P
S/o, Prakash S,
Aged about 29 years
R/at, No. 197, 11th Cross
Kalappa Block, Srinagar,
Bangalore-50 ......Applicants
(By Advocate, Shri M. Subramanya Bhat)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi-11
2. The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29,
Represented by the Director.
3. The Registrar,
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
4. Meghana S
W/o, Mohan Kumar B S
Major in age
Hospital Assistant,
Hospital Staff Section
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
5. Sanjay N
A/o P. Narayana Hospital Assistant,
Major in age
RM Verma SSB
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
4
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Hospital Assistant,
Hospital Staff Section
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
6. Navyashree
D/o, Gangadhrappa C
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
RM Verma SSB
Hospital Staff Section
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
7. Sanjay L.S
S/o, Shiva Kumar L
Major in age
Hospital Assistant, Stroke Deluxe,
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
8. Harish Kumar J
S/o, Janardhan
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Neurology Special Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
9. Madhu G
S/o, Ganganna
Major in age
Hospital Assistant, POGW,
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
5
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10.Yeshwanth Kumar M J
S/o Jaya Ramu R.
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Head Injury Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
11.Yashas M.V.
S/o, Venkareshmurthy
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Emergency ICU
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
12.Nischith
S/o, Ravi B
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Recovery Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
13.Ramyadeep F.
D/o, Ekambaram
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Head Injury Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
14.Gowthami R
Father's name not known
Major in age
Female Surgery Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
6
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
15.Rajesh R
S/o, Ravi Kumar M
Major in age
Hospital Assistant, GICU
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
16.Nishanth M.R.
Father's name not known
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Recovery Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
17.Gowtham S
S/o, Subramani
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Stroke Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29
18.Sanjay J.V.
S/o, Vasudevan. J
Major in age
Hospital Assistant
Male Neurosurgery Ward
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science,
(NIMHANS),
Bangalore-29 .....Respondents
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
7
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocate, Shri K. Prabhakar Rao for Respondents No. 2 and 3, Shri
K B Narayanaswamy for Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and 16 to 18,
Respondent Nos. 1 and 15 are ex-parte)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a) Issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that inclusion of the candidates possessing qualification higher than pass in SSLC by the 3rd Respondent in the selection process of Hospital Assistants in terms of the Notification dated 25.7.2022 (Annexure-A2) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, produced at Annexure-A8 and A9;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 2 and 3 redo the entire selection process for the posts of Hospital Assistants by considering only the candidates possessing qualification of pass in SSLC from the stage of conducting written test and to publish a merit list and proceed with the recruitment process from that stage, to meet the ends of justice;
c) Pass any other Order or Direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The applicants, in response to the Notification from NIMHANS, applied for the post of Hospital Assistants. After going through the process of recruitment, they were not selected as their marks were less than the Cut off marks. The Notification dated 09.11.2023 which found 35 candidates from different categories eligible for a Skill test did not carry the names of the applicants. The KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 8 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE applicants found that the Notification carried the names of those who had higher qualification than SSLC which was notified and this in their view was in violation of certain Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The applicants being aggrieved by the perceived wrongful application of selection criteria have approached this Court through this OA.
3. Applicants
(i) The learned Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants possess SSLC qualification, and belong to different categories. They secured different % of marks in the SSLC examination. According to him, the 2nd Respondent addressed a communication dated 25.7.2022 to the Assistant Director, Sub- Regional Employment Exchange, Bengaluru notifying 35 posts of Hospital Assistants (Group-C) in the pay scale of Rs. 18000-56900 with starting pay of Rs. 18000/- in NIMHANS. This communication specifically states that only the candidates who possess the required/notified qualification may be sponsored. Along with the above communication, a Notification form was also enclosed as Form X-6, which contained the minimum qualification, classification of posts and reservation specified for 35 posts and the relevant extract of the Recruitment Rules in relation to the posts in question.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the applicants points out that out of 35 posts, 5 posts were reserved in favor of SCs; 3 posts for STs; 9 for OBCs; 4 for EWS and 14 posts unreserved. Thus, the total reservation being 21 out of 35, exceeded 50%. Minimum educational qualification prescribed is pass in SSLC. The 2nd Respondent was requested to sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1:10 KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 9 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE for the above posts. Accordingly, names of the applicants and others were sponsored by the Employment exchange for the above posts.
(iii) According to the learned Counsel for applicants, the applicants applied for the post of Hospital Assistants. An Online Examination was conducted on 1.10.2023 in which they all duly participated. 2nd Respondent thereafter issued a Memorandum dated 25.10.2023 and published a Merit List containing the names of 326 candidates. Names of the applicants figured in this list at SI No. 209, 125, 307, 273, 215, 104, 230, 171, 321 and 265 respectively. Subsequently, 2nd Respondent published a Notification dated 9.11.2023, which carried names of 35 candidates who were found eligible for a Skill Test which was to be held on 18.11.2023. The candidates were also directed to produce the original documents for verification. This list did not contain the names of the applicants. However, names of several candidates who possessed higher qualification than the one prescribed were found in the list. The learned Counsel for applicants has furnished the details of such candidates in the following table which is as follows:
Sl No. Roll No. Names Qualification Marks in the Written Test 1 HA1211 Sushma R PUC 88 Gowda 2 HA1296 Syed Imran M A Graduate 85 3 HA1236 Meghana S M. Com 78 4 HA1019 Navyashree G B.E 78 5 HA1041 Rakesh G B.Com 77 6 HA1323 Ganesh J Shetty Graduate 64 KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 10 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 7 HA1130 Chandrashekhar L Diploma 73 8 HA1036 Yashas M V B.E 73 9 HA1157 Gowthami R B.E 87 10 HA1181 Mahalakshmi H L B.Sc 73 11 HA1159 Nishanth M R M.A 72 12 HA 1198 Madhu G Graduate 85 13 HA11232 Nischith R Graduate 85 14 HA1243 Manjunath PUC 75 15 HA1295 Sunil Basavaraj Graduate 76 Dundi 16 HA1297 Mithun Kumar G Graduate 71 S
(iv) The learned Counsel for the applicants avers that though the 2nd Respondent has not mentioned in the list, the educational qualification possessed by the above candidates, he has been able to secure the details of their qualification. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the selection process to the extent of shortlisting the candidates who possess higher qualification is unsustainable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2 cases reported in (2003) 3 SCC 541 and (2021) 12 SCC 80 which are cited as Annexure A-8 and A-9. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the following two Judgements.
(i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 541 vide Civil Appeals Nos. 1726-28 of 2001 dated March 5, 2003:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
11
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anit Kumar Das reported in (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 80 vide Civil Appeals No. 3602 of 2020 dated November 3, 2020:
4. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
(i) The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a bare reading of Annexure-A2 makes it clear that the candidates were sought from the Employment Exchange by the 3rd Respondent by clearly specifying the minimum qualification as Pass in SSLC. Hence, before accepting the candidatures, 3rd Respondent ought to have examined the educational qualification of all the candidates. The Respondent failed to adhere to its own Recruitment Rules by allowing overqualified candidates, not only to participate in the exam but also shortlisted them for further selection process.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the applicants argues that the object of specifying the educational qualification is to secure selection of suitable candidates commensurate to the duties and responsibilities of the post notified. The posts of Hospital Assistants are Group C Posts, whose duties and responsibilities are also spelt out in the Admission Ticket issued to the candidates. SSLC Pass is prescribed taking due cognizance of the duties and responsibilities attached to these posts. A candidate who possesses higher qualification will have better employment opportunity; and if a post requiring SSLC qualification is permitted to be occupied by a candidate with higher qualification, it will be at the cost of employment opportunity to the SSLC Pass candidates. This eventuality will certainly negate them their Rights guaranteed KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 12 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE under Articles 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Exclusion of the Applicants from the selection process and inclusion of overqualified candidates would also result in infraction of Article 14 and amounts to arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable conduct.
(iii) The learned Counsel for the applicants concludes by stating that the purpose of conducting recruitment process is to give equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates. NIMHANS is a premier Institute of Mental Health of National importance. It cannot curtail opportunity of public employment to all those candidates who are eligible, qualified and entitled, by giving preference to the overqualified candidates. Thus Respondent 2 & 3 have acted arbitrarily and whimsically and hence, the process of exam should be redone excluding the over qualified candidates. Therefore, the action of the Respondent No. 3 in issuing the impugned notification is arbitrary, irrational, illegal and discriminatory, offending the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India.
5. RESPONDENTS
(i) The Counsel for the Respondents has filed their reply. The Counsel for the Respondents submits that National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, which is Respondent No.2 in the above proceedings is represented by its Director. NIMHANS is a premier institute of national importance which comes under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India. The Institute is governed by the provisions of The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore Act, 2012.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
13
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) The Counsel for Respondents avers that the Applicants are challenging
Notification dated 25.7.2022 issued by the contesting Respondents with regard to the selection posts of Hospital Assistants (Group-C) Numbering 35. Further, the Applicants are seeking directions to re do the entire selection process for the post of Hospital Assistants considering the qualification of pass of S.S.L.C. only. They also sought to redo the selection process from the stage of conducting the written test.
(iii) The Counsel submits that the Respondent Institute addressed communication dated 25.07.2022 to the Assistant Director Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, Bengaluru, notifying the vacancies of 35 posts of Hospital Assistants (Group-C) in the pay scale of Rs.18000-56900 in pay band- 3 with initial pay of Rs. 18000/- in NIMHANS. He argues that though the minimum qualification for the Hospital Assistants was notified as SSLC qualification / ITI, the said Notification / C&R Rules do not disqualify the candidates possessing higher qualification from participating in the recruitment process. The Applicants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the above said posts of Hospital Assistants. Online examination was conducted on 01.10.2023 in which the Applicants as well as other candidates have appeared/participated. The Second Respondent vide its notification dated:
25.10.2023 published the result of the test conducted on 01.10.2023 for the post of Hospital Assistant carrying the marks obtained by the 326 candidates. The marks secured by the applicants in the said written test is provided in below tabular form for ready reference:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
14
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
SI No. Name Marks SI No. in Roll No.
Obtained Result List
1 Pooja G 58 209 HA1209
2 Udaya Kumar 65 125 HA1125
3 Shivaraj 48 307 HA1307
Kumar S
4 Lepakshi L 53 273 HA1273
5 Avinash N 53 215 HA1215
6 Suresh Kumar 61 104 HA1104
M
7 Pallavi L 57 230 HA1230
8 Nethravathi J 52 171 HA1171
9 Radha R 65 321 HA1321
10 Prasanna P 62 265 HA1265
(iv) The Counsel submits that the Respondent issued another notification
dated: 09.11.2023, which is produced at Annexure-A7 publishing a list of 35 candidates belonging to different categories who were eligible to participate in the Skill Test to be held on 18.11.2023. Since the applicants secured less marks and were found not eligible to participate in the further process of recruitment, their names were not listed in the said Skill Test Notification. The candidates who appeared in the skill test also produced their original documents for verification. The successful candidates who completed the recruitment process were selected after verifying their original records. The Counsel submits that as per their records, all the selected candidates were possessing SSLC qualifications and five out of these 35 selected candidates possessed additional qualification.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
15
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(v) The Counsel for Respondents argues that there was no bar for the
Institute to select the candidates who are having higher qualifications than that of SSLC/ITI for the posts of Hospital Assistants. He points out that the judgments cited by the applicants i.e. (2003) 3 SCC 541 and (2021) 12 SCC 80 are neither relevant nor applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the Applicants. He avers that this Hon'ble Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manage, Punjab National Bank & anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Das reported in (2021) 12 SSC page 80, has held:
"It would also be inappropriate for this Tribunal to issue a mandamus declaring that the two qualifications should be considered as equivalent for the purpose of determining eligibility of the applicant to be considered for appointment".
(vi) He reiterated that all the 35 candidates selected, after following due recruitment process are possessing the required minimum education qualification i.e, SSLC. Hence, the Respondents have not discriminated the Applicants while selecting other candidates.
(vii) The Counsel for the Respondents refutes the assertion of the applicants that the reservation carved out of the total 35 Hospital Assistant posts exceeds the limit of 50%. He submits that the said recruitment notification has been issued, based on the Roster points to maintain the required reservation percentage of each category as per the laid down Reservation policy of the Government. The reservation provided in the said Recruitment Notification is well within the zone of 50% of posts vacant as on the Recruitment Year.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
16
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(viii) The Counsel for Respondents also refutes the assertion of the applicants
that the NIMHANS issued a Merit list or Memorandum dated 25.10.2022. He points out that the entire list of result of all candidates who participated in the Competitive Written Exam held on 01.10.2023 was published on 25.10.2023. According to him, as per records only three candidates (i.e, Syed Imran M A, Rakesh G and Gowthami R) out of the 16 candidates (Annexure A-6) were found possessing additional qualification.
(ix) He submits that the Respondent published Notification to conduct recruitment of Hospital Assistant posts as per the approved C&R Rules. He points out that nowhere it is mentioned in C&R Rules that those who have higher education qualification then minimum prescribed SSLC will be disqualified. Further, nowhere in the Notification it is mentioned that the candidates possessing higher qualification will be disqualified. Hence, the Supreme Court judgments in (2003) 3 SCC 541 and (2021) 12 SCC 80 do not have relevance to this instant case.
(x) The Counsel submits that the Respondents have not violated any of the provisions of the NIMHANS Act, 2012 and the recruitment of Hospital Assistants (Group-C) numbering 35 are justified as they are as per laid down procedure. The Applicants, having participated in the selection process and having failing to secure merit position have no right to question the selection process. The selected candidates are working in the Respondent Institute and if, the prayer of the applicants were to be accepted, the rights of the selected candidates would be affected. In this regard, he invites our attention to the Judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 919/2019 dated 7.7.2023 in the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 17 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE case of S Chandrashekar Vs. The Union of India & NIMHANS has held at Para No. 7 as follows:-
"It would also be inappropriate for this Tribunal to issue a mandamus declaring that the two qualifications should be considered as equivalent for the purpose of determining eligibility of the applicant to be considered for appointment."
6. Reply filed by the Private Respondents (Respondent No. 4 to 14 And 16 to 18) The learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 14 and 16 to 18 have also filed their reply. During the course of the arguments the learned Counsel for these respondents categorically mentioned in the Court that their reply is completely in consonance with the reply filed by the Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. They are in complete agreement and in total support of the contentions and averments of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, as filed in his Reply statement and also as argued during the proceedings in the Court.
7. Finally to conclude, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has invited out attention to the Judgement of this very Bench of CAT in OA No. 457 of 2024 dated 28.01.2026 and has stated that the facts and circumstances in the case are exactly the same.
8. Conclusion
(i) We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the counsel for applicants and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 18 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels. We have also gone through the Judgement of this Bench in OA No. 457 of 2024 which was delivered on 28.01.2026. It is seen that the facts and circumstances in this case are exactly the same as were in OA No. 457 of 2024. The relevant portions of the Judgement are reproduced as below for ease of convenience:
"......................
7.Conclusion
(ii) It would be beneficial to address the issues raised by the applicants by going through the relevant records related to the selection process commencing from the very beginning with the Form of Notification of the Vacancies. The relevant column/serial no. of Form for Notification of Vacancy is cited as Annexure A-3 and is as follows:
"Form for Notification of Vacancies to the Employment Exchange By Both Act and No-Act Establishments Form No. X-6 No. of Vacancies 35 (SC-5, ST-3, OBC-9, EWS-4, UR-14) Likewise, Serial No. 7 and 8, 8 A, 8 B indicate as follows:
7 Probable date by Will be intimated after
which the vacancy receipt of the list
will be filled
8 Particulars regarding Computer based
test of applicants Eligibility Test(CBT)
and Skill Test will be
held as per orders of
DoPT O.M No.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
19
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
39020/01/2013-Estt (B)-
Part dated 29.12.2015
8 (a) Date and time of Skill Will be communicated
Test and Written Test as and when it is fixed
8(b) Place of Skill Test Place of examination
and Written Test centre will be decided by
NIMHANS
(iii) It is an admitted fact that the applicants have filed up the application
form etc after going through the above Form for Notification of Vacancy which is clearly giving all relevant details. Thus, it is obvious that the applicants were aware of the above Columns/Serial Nos in the Form for Notification, pertaining to Number of Vacancies, the vacancies for reserved categories, the dates by which the vacancies will be filled and details of Skill Test and Written tests etc. They have not objected to them while filling up the form or while going through the entire process of selection. They have sought to challenge it only after they have failed to be selected which is not tenable. In this regard, it will be beneficial to cite the relevant portions of certain Judgements of the Supreme Court which are as follows:
(1) Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 = 2013[2] SLJ 377 [SC] After participating in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the advertisement.
In this case, after referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge to the advertisement for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participating in the selection process. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"24. 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."
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
20
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(2) Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors., 2015 (11) SCC 493 [C.A. No.6549 of 2014] [D-11.05.2015] Examination - Challenge after participation in Selection Process "2. This batch of appeals raises a common controversy relating to the promotion of Constables and Head Constables to the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The process of promotion started way back in 1999 and has since embroiled in litigation. Basically, the candidates appearing for promotion from the rank of Constable or Head Constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector have challenged the selection and promotion process at various stages of the promotion process.
16. 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. Thus, 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. (See Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 150, and K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395)"
(3) Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, C.A. no. 9092 of 2012 [21.10.2016] [S.C.- 3 judges] [Reported in 2017 (4) SCC 357] Candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 21 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 this Court held that :
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same... (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724)."
(iv) Selection of Overqualified Candidates:
In this regard, it would be beneficial to peruse the relevant portions of the two Judgements which were cited by the Applicant.
(1) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 541 vide Civil Appeals Nos. 1726-28 of 2001 dated March 5, 2003:
"10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of the appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 22 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE primary teachers as only TTC and not BEd. Whether BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible.
................
13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to BEd candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had BEd candidates been excluded from the selections. The.........................impugned judgment of the Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored."
From the above, it is abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court as the recruitment was specifically for School Teachers for which Trained Teachers Certificates was essential as these teachers were especially trained to teach small children of primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach higher classes.
(2) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anit Kumar Das reported in (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 80 vide Civil Appeals No. 3602 of 2020 dated November 3, 2020:
"..............
2. Applications were invited by the appellant Bank for the post of Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the said advertisement was that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English. It specifically KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 23 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE provided that a candidate should not be a graduate as on 1-1- 2016. A candidate was also required to submit the biodata as per the prescribed format. The respondent herein, though a graduate, applied for the said post. However, neither in the application nor in the biodata, he disclosed that he was a graduate.....
3. It appears that while scrutiny of the documents was going on, the appellant Bank came to know about a graduate certificate showing that the respondent-original writ petitioner was a graduate since 2014. Thus, it was noticed and found that he was not eligible as per the advertisement and the circulars and that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled and he was not allowed to join the Bank in subordinate cadre.......
.................
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The appellant Bank invited the applications for the post of Peon by giving an advertisement in the local newspaper. In the advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English and should not be a graduate as on 1-1-2016. Thus, as per the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement, a candidate who was having qualification of graduate was not eligible even to apply.
.........
11. .....The relevant portion of Circular Letter No. 25 of 2008 dated 6-11-2008 reads as under:
"Age Minimum- 18 years Maximum- 24 years with applicable relaxations. Education: Pa Pass in 12th standard or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English (Graduates are not eligible)."
From the above it is very clear that the advertisement itself mentioned that graduates are not eligible. Hence, the above Judgement is also not applicable in this case as there was no specific injunction in the C&R Rules of the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 24 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE NIMHANS which prohibited candidates of higher qualification from appearing in the examination and for selection. The Learned Counsel for Respondent has correctly pointed out that all of them had minimum qualification of SSLC Pass and therefore, they were fully eligible.
(v) Furthermore, it may be pertinent to refer again to the Judgement of Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench, vide OA No. 66/2022 dated 02.12.2024 "29. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering catena of judgments declared that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Court to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it."
(vi) Moreover, the Counsel for Respondents has clearly pointed out that the process of selection/recruitment was equally applicable to all the applicants and no individual was discriminated against on any parameter.
(viii) The above matrix of action circumstances clearly indicates that the entire process of selection by NIMHANS is strictly in consonance with the laid down rules and procedures. There has been absolutely no unjust or unfair treatment of the applicant by the respondents, nor the applicants have been able to establish any violation of the Supreme Court Judgements, which were cited by them.
Hence, the OA has no legs to stand upon. Therefore, it is ordered as follows:
1 The OA is dismissed.
2 No costs"
9. As cited supra, the facts and circumstances of this case are exactly the same as has already been dealt with by this very Bench in OA No. 457 of 2024.
It is a well settled principle that if a case is exactly identical in terms of facts & circumstances and law to a case earlier decided upon, the Judgement should also be similar to that of the coordinate Bench. In this regard, it would be KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 25 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE beneficial to visit the relevant portions of the following Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(i) Judgement of Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal and Anr Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 vide Civil Appeal No. 5363-64 of 1997 dated 14.12.1999:
"...................................
11. Before us in these matters, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties contended that the latter Bench of the tribunal committed a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment without Following the rule of precedent.........
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 26 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of a larger Bench of S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary... on 14 December, 1999 the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship.
.........................."
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
L RANI2026.03.26
17:36:59+05'30'
27
OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) Judgement of Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 vide Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 dated 18.10.2010:
".............
17. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system.
Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide: Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637).
18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench......."
10. The Judgements of the Supreme Court cited supra, clearly state that if a Court has passed a Judgement in a case with a given set of facts & circumstances and law, then the same has to be honoured subsequently by the Coordinate Benches in all other similar cases. It is seen that the facts & KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 28 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE circumstances in this case are exactly similar to the one already decided upon in OA No. 457 of 2024 dated 28.01.2026, by this Bench. We find no reason or grounds to differ from the same.
11. Hence, it is hereby ordered:
1. The OA is dismissed.
2. All pending MAs if not decided will be treated as disposed.
3. No costs Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) kr KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30'