Waris Rashid Kidwai vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 March, 1998
4. Petitioner, therefore, urges that based on the recommendation of the Board and the policy of preferring internal candidates, petitioner who had been adjudged most meritorious candidate was entitled to be appointed. The Board had invited applications vide its advertisement/ circular dated 13th June, 2003. Petitioner was the only internal candidate. Petitioner claims greater experience and expertise and states that he worked in Indian Navy for 20 years and 15 years with respondent No. 4, while respndent No. 5 had worked only with Indian Navy without having any experience whatsoever of working with respondent No. 4 or of ship building. Respondent No. 5 had been placed by the Board below the petitioner in ranking. Petitioner also urges that actin of respondents 1 to 3 is vitiated by possibly placing reliance on the material that was not put up before the Board and which may have been in existence prior to 18th September, 2003. Petitioner also claims that action of respondent No. 4 in ignoring the petitioner's claims is in violation of the directions, guidelines set out in WP(C) 437/1998 titled Warris Rashid Kidwai v. Union of India and the judgment of the Supreme court in Dr. A.K. Doshi v. Union of India , wherein the cort disapproved of the notes made by the Secretary of the Appointments Committee in the file which were not before the Selection Committee and by which Selection Committee's recommendation was sought to be brought to naught.