Dr. Prabha D Nair v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 6 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 945/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 29-11-2018** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **DR.PRABHA.D.NAIR AGED 59 YEARS,W/O. V. DAMODHARAN NAIR, WORKING AS SCIENTIST G (SENIOR GRADE), SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY,MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **2 SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF HEAD BIO MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY WING,SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.** **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 2 **3 THE GOVERNING BODY OF SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.** - **4 THE DIRECTOR** **SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011** **5 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **6 DR. HARIKRISHNA VARMA** **HEAD, BIO MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY WING, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC SRI.S.VISHNU SRI. T.R. RAVI, SC FOR R1** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Ravikumar, J. Participation in a selection process would normally preclude the candidate concerned the right to challenge the very selection. Certainly, this normal rule is having exceptions, though only a few. In the case on hand, the Tribunal as per its order dated 29.11.2018 in O.A.No.945 of 2016 held that the applicant therein viz., the petitioner herein who had participated in the selection process could not turn around and challenge the selection in question. Various reasons have been given by the Tribunal for dismissing the Original Application filed by the applicant. It is challenging the said order of dismissal of the Original Application that the applicant therein filed the captioned original petition. 2. In the context of the contentions, it is only proper to state the facts compendiously. The petitioner is a Scientist in the level 'G' (Senior Grade) and the 6[th] respondent was an Engineer in the level 'F', under the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 4 for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (for brevity 'the Institute' only). They responded to Annexure-A1 notification dated 5.8.2014 issued for appointment to the post of Head, Biomedical Technology Wing of the Institute. Ultimately, the 6[th] respondent was selected and appointed against the said post on 3.8.2016. It is calling in question his selection that the petitioner filed the said Original Application, seeking the following reliefs:- - “A) To call for the records leading to Annexure A13 and Annexure A14 appointing the 6[th] respondent as the Head of Bio Medical Technology Wing of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram and to set aside the same; - B) To call for the records leading to AnnexureA4 and Annexure-A6 and to declare that the recommendations made under the same by the Selection Committee are illegal and against the provisions of the relevant rules and to set aside the same; - C) To declare that the applicant is eligible to be appointed as the Head, Bio Medical Technology Wing of the 1[st] respondent and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the applicant as the Head, Bio Medical Technology Wing of the 1[st] respondent;” **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 5 The Tribunal declined to grant the aforesaid prayers and dismissed the Original Application. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.T.R.Ravi, appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 4. The Institute is governed by Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology Trivandrum Act, 1980 (Act 52 of 1980) (for short 'the Act'). In exercise of the powers under Section 31 therein, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology Trivandrum Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules'), were framed subsequently. The Institute has two major wings namely; Hospital Wing functioning at Medical College Campus and the Biomedical Technology Wing functioning at the Satelmond Palace Compound at Poojappura. As noticed hereinbefore, Annexure-A1 notification was issued for appointment to the post of Head of Biomedical Technology Wing. The method of appointment to the said post is governed by Rule 7(iii) of the Rules and it reads thus:- “ **7. Creation of posts and appointments thereto.** - **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 6 ....................... (iii) Appointment to the post of Head of the Biomedical Technology Wing of the Institute shall be made by the Governing Body on the basis of the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology of Government of India as Chairman, the Director as ex-officio member and an expert to be nominated by the President as a member thereof.” 5. As provided under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules, a Selection Committee was constituted for conducting the selection in pursuance of Annexure-A1 notification. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is challenge against its constitution. The said Selection Committee interviewed 11 shortlisted candidates including the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent, on 28.9.2015. Annexure-A4, which is the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 28.9.2015, would reveal that though a detailed examination of the technical strength and personal discussion with the candidates was made by the Committee, it could not find any suitable candidate for the post, from among the candidates interviewed. Consequently, the Committee recommended for a wider search for encouraging **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 7 thought leaders to be nominated for the position from the heads of the institutions/eminent scientists in the field and also to consider deputation as a method of appointment in addition to the direct recruitment. The Governing Body that met on 5.11.2015 considered the issue and then decided to approve the recommendations of the Committee. The Selection Committee with the earlier members was again entrusted with the task of conducting the selection process. However, its efforts to find out a suitable hand did not yield any result. On 16.12.2015 the Selection Committee reviewed the outcome of the selection process initiated for identifying suitable candidates for the aforesaid post and then made recommendation, as per Annexure-A6, on the following lines:- - “3. Based on the experience so far, a Selection Committee makes the following recommendations: - a. The Committee seeks empowerment to initiate a search process for identifying such candidates who would walk into the selection process, based on their credentials. The external members of the Selection committee have offered to initiate the search process and explore the availability of potential candidates within **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 8 the next three weeks. Since professional with strong credentials and leadership potentials would need to be persuaded for mid-career changes in their professional responsibilities and functions the Search Committee recommends to also consider twin appointment, in addition to the option of full-time shifting to SCTIMST. - b. In the event the search process suggested does not yield the desired result, the following two internal candidates empanelled could be considered for the: i) Dr.Prabha D Nair ii) Dr.Harikrishna Varma These two candidates could be invited to make a presentation to the Governing Body and a suitable decision may be made.” 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the first method recommended by the Selection Committee was not resorted to and instead the second recommendation for finding out the suitable candidate was followed by the Governing Body. Be that as it may, it is evident that in the matter of selection to the aforesaid post the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent were invited to make presentation and to have discussion, by the Governing Body. Initially, the discussion was scheduled to be held on 19.3.2016. **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 9 On 10.3.2016, following the earlier information passed on 9.3.2016, the petitioner was informed that due to declaration of elections, the date of discussion was postponed. Later, the petitioner was served with Annexure-A10 dated 27.6.2016 whereunder she was invited for a personal discussion and for 15 minutes presentation on her “Vision for BMT Wing, SCTIMST”, on 30.7.2016, before the Governing Body. Evidently, the 6[th] respondent was also invited for personal discussion and 15 minutes presentation on his “Vision for BMT Wing, SCTIMST”. Pursuant to such discussion and presentation held on 30.7.2016 the 6[th] respondent was selected and as noticed hereinbefore, he was appointed as the Head of Biomedical Technology Wing of the first respondent on 3.8.2016 after designating him as an Engineer 'G'. It is in the said circumstances, seeking quashment of the appointment of the 6[th] respondent and further reliefs, as mentioned hereinbefore, that the above mentioned Original Application has been filed by the petitioner. 7. The core contention of the petitioner, raised before the Tribunal was that the selection that culminated in the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 10 appointment of the 6[th] respondent was not made in accordance with Rule 7(iii) of the Rules. In elaboration of the said contention it was contended that the Selection Committee virtually stepped beyond its power in recommending to adopt a new method of selection viz., nomination as also for conducting discussion and presentation of the external candidates. Essentially, the contention was that being the committee constituted under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules they were entrusted only with the task of selection and in such circumstances, they should have selected candidates from among the interviewed persons and at any rate, recommending for adoption of the aforesaid methods was ultra vires. It is also her contention that the Governing Body had also committed mistake in approving the recommendations and then adopting the second method recommended by the Selection Committee for finding out suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Head, Biomedical Technology Wing of the first respondent. The petitioner has also got another grievance. According to her, she was informed about the participation of the 6[th] respondent in the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 11 selection process for discussion and presentation only as per Annexure-A11 and there was no whisper about his participation in Annexure-A10 or in the earlier information given to her on 9.3.2016. A perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner would reveal that she had also raised the contention that being senior to the 6[th] respondent and owing to the higher cadre of Scientist `G' she should have been preferred in the matter of selection to the aforesaid post. Those contentions raised before the Tribunal could not find favour with the Tribunal and ultimately, the Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **D. Sarojakumari** v. **R.Helen Thilakom ((2017) 9 SCC 478)** held that being a candidate participated in the selection process she could not be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection or raise grievance against her non-selection. In that view of the matter, the Original Application was dismissed. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually reiterated all contentions unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunal and at the same time, made elaborate arguments in support of the challenge against the impugned order passed **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 12 by the Tribunal and also the selection process that culminated in the selection of the 6[th] respondent. 9. We have already held that the position that a participant in a selection process could not challenge the very selection is not an inviolable position and evidently, it is having exceptions. True that, the Tribunal on analyzing the factual position obtained in the case on hand came to the conclusion that the case on hand falls under the category where the participant could not be permitted to challenge the selection process. We will firstly consider whether the said finding of the Tribunal could be sustained. Challenging the said finding the learned Senior Counsel raised contentions founded on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Raj Kumar and Others** v. **Shakti Raj and Others (1997) 9 SCC 527** , **Rajesh Awasthi** v. **Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others (2013) 1 SCC 501,** the Division Bench decision of this Court in **Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit** v. **State (1996 (2) KLT 378),** an unreported decision in **W.A.No.1708 of 2018** and **Jose Issac v. The Pharmaceutical Corporation (Indian Medicines) Kerala Ltd. (Oushadhi)** reported in **2019 (1) KLT SN 10 (case No.16)** . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 13 respondents 1 to 4 relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **D. Sarojakumari's** case (supra) and also the decisions in **Manish Kumar Shahi** v. **State of Bihar and Others ((2010) 12 SCC 576)** and **Sadananda Halo** v. **Momtaz Ali Sheikh ((2008) 4 SCC 619).** 10. The undisputed and indisputable position is that both the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent had responded to Annexure-A1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Head, Biomedical Technology Wing of the first respondent. The shortlisted candidates, 11 in number, including them, were interviewed on 28.9.2015. Annexure-A4 would reveal the outcome of the interview held on that date. Evidently, none of the candidates interviewed including the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent, was found suitable for appointment to the said post. Consequently, the Selection Committee recommended for a wider search for encouraging thought leaders to be nominated for the position from heads of the institutions/eminent scientists in the field and also deputation as mode of appointment in addition to the direct **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 14 recruitment. Since such wider search did not yield the desired result the Committee which again met on 16.12.2015 made twin recommendations. It is in connection with the second method recommended under Annexure-A6 that the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent were invited to participate in the discussion and to make presentation which ultimately resulted in the selection and appointment of the 6[th] respondent. It is thus obvious that the petitioner now raises the contention that the Governing Body ought not have deviated from the procedures contemplated under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules for selecting the Head, Biomedical Technology Wing of the first respondent and it committed an illegality in accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee and then following a method which was not at all contemplated under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules in the matter of selection to the said post. The question is whether the petitioner could be non-suited for having participated in the selection process in the said circumstances in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **D. Sarojakumari's** case (supra). Obviously, the petitioner, who is now raising the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 15 contention that the Governing Body ought not have deviated from the procedures contemplated under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules for selecting the Head, Biomedical Technology Wing of the first respondent and that it had committed an illegality in accepting the recommendations of the selection committee by following the method not at all contemplated thereunder for selection, had actually participated in the selection process, but unsuccessfully. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner could be non-suited for the aforesaid reason, in the said circumstances, in the light of the decisions relied on by the Tribunal. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision in **Raj Kumar** 's case, **Rajesh** 's case and the decision in W.A.No.1708 of 2018 [2019 (1) KLT SN 10 (Case No.16)], contended that mere participation in the selection process, shall not be a ground for non-suiting the petitioner, if she is otherwise having a right to challenge the selection. It is true that in **Raj Kumar** 's case, the Apex Court held that the principle of estoppel could be blindly applied in a **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 16 case where a candidate who appeared in an interview, on becoming unsuccessful, turns around and challenges the selection. Virtually, it was held therein that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has to be considered in taking into account the facts and circumstances of the individual cases. Paragraph 16 of the decision in **Raj Kumar** 's case (supra) is relevant for the purpose. It reads thus:- “Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in _Madan Lal_ v. _State of J&K_ and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 17 selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” 12. In **Rajesh Awasthi** 's case, the person partaken in the selection process challenged the selection of another candidate in the same process of selection. He filed a writ of quo warranto. The selection in question was to the post of the Chairperson of U.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Essentially, the authority to continue as the Chairperson of the U.P State Electricity Regulatory Commission of the person **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 18 concerned was challenged by filing a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the selection committee had not complied with Subsection 5 of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Apex Court held that Section 85 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has inherent inviolability and every word used therein had to be understood in the context with regard to the legislative intendment. 13. On the question of maintainability of a writ of quowarranto in such matters, there can be no dispute. But we are at a loss to understand as to how the said decision is relevant for the purpose of this case when the issue to be considered is whether a person participated in a particular process whose further conduct is befitting to be described that of a fence sitter, could maintain the challenge against the selection process. In view of the factual position obtained in this case and the questions posed for consideration, we are of the view that the said decision is totally inapplicable to the facts obtained in this case. In **Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit** 's case (supra), a person who had partaken in the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 19 selection had challenged the selection, evidently, raising challenge against the very constitution of the selection committee. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 contained specific provision regarding constitution of a selection committee and going by the specific contention raised in that case, the very constitution of the selection committee was not in accordance with the statutory mandate. Evidently, this Court held that if constitution of the selection committee was unknown to the candidates, till they appear for the interview, they could challenge the constitution of the selection committee even after the interview and in which event the theory of 'sitting on the fence' could not be applied. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 20 of the said decision and it reads as follows:- “In these cases, the constitution of the selection committee was not known to the candidates. Only when they appeared for the interview, they knew who are all the members of the selection committee. Only thereafter, they could gather information regarding the qualifications and other relevant factors about the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 20 members of the selection committee. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the theory of “sitting on the fence” can be applied in these cases.” 14. We will now refer to the decision in **Jose Issac's** case (supra). We have gone through the full text of the judgment. It is also a case where the appellants had participated in a selection process. Pursuant to the selection process, they were included in the select list prepared by the Pharmaceutical Corporation. They were virtually awaiting the orders of appointment. It is the delay in getting the orders of appointment that constrained them to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25423 of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus to appoint them to the post of General Worker under the Corporation. The Corporation resisted the claims and contentions. They contended that no rank list or select list was published by the Corporation and Ext.P3 referred in the said writ petition was not actually the rank list or select list and it is only a copy of the proceedings of the selection committee. The Corporation further contended that its Board of **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 21 Directors decided to constitute a sub committee to examine the legality of the selection conducted and to submit a report. On obtaining the report, it was found that a fundamental defect actually vitiated the selection process. In the selection committee, there was no Government representative despite the mandatory provision for inclusion of a Government representative in the selection committee. Owing to the said fundamental defect in the constitution of the selection committee in respect of the selection process, the Corporation took a decision not to effect appointment from the list prepared by such a selection committee. Evidently, upholding the contention of the Corporation, the Division Bench held the selection process in question as vitiated. The Division Bench held therein that if a particular modality is prescribed to do a certain act, any action in defiance or ignorance of such modality could not be protected or preserved on the plea of estoppel. 15. We will now refer to the decision relied on by the official respondents and referred to by the Tribunal in its order. Evidently, the Tribunal referred to the following recital in **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 22 ## **D** . **Sarojakumari** 's case:- “......Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellants, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this, we need not go into the other issues raised.” 16. In **Sadananda Halo and others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others [(2008) 4 SCC 619]** , the Apex Court was considering the circumstances where an unsuccessful candidate in a selection could turn back and assail the selection process. It is to be noted that in the decision as well, the Apex Court held that there are exceptions to the general rule that unsuccessful candidate could not turn back and assail the selection process in which he had participated. A scanning of the said decision would reveal that while holding that the general rule is that an **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 23 unsuccessful candidate could not be permitted to turn back and assail the selection process, the Apex Court held that it could not be an inviolable position and the question whether there could be an exception to the said principle depends upon the contextual facts in a given particular case. In the said decision, the Apex Court carved out certain exceptions to the aforesaid general rule. Paragraphs 59 to 61 therein assume relevance in this context and they run as follows: **“59.** It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in _Union of India_ v. _S. Vinodh Kumar_ where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party. This was a case where different cut-off marks were fixed for the unreserved candidates and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. This Court in para 10 of its judgment endorsed the action and recorded a finding that there was a power in the employer to fix the cut-off marks which power was neither denied nor disputed and further that the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 24 cut-off marks were fixed on a rational basis and, therefore, no exception could be taken. The Court also referred to the judgment in _Om Prakash Shukla_ v. _Akhilesh Kumar Shukla_ where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise. The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment to the effect: ( _S. Vinodh Kumar case_ , SCC p. 107, para 19) “ _19_ . … ‘ _34_ . There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, 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 there was some lacuna in the process.’ ” In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the Court did not go into those **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 25 exceptions since the same were not material. **60.** In our opinion the first basic thing for such a selection process would be the lack of bona fides or, as the case may be, mala fide exercise of powers by those who were at the helm of selection process. Both the courts below have not recorded any finding that they found any mala fides on the part of any of the State officials who headed the interviews. On the other hand the tenor of the judgments shows that the whole process did not suffer from mala fides, lack of bona fides, bias or political interference. In _Union of India_ v. _Bikash Kuanar_ this Court observed in para 14 thus: (SCC p. 195) “ _14_ . When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice.” **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 26 **61.** The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision in _Raj Kumar_ v. _Shakti Raj_ seems to have found an exception to this rule and has more particularly relied on the observation made in para 16 to the following effect: (SCC p. 536) “ _16_ . … But in his case, the Government has committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” We do not think that this case is apposite for the present controversy. In the reported decision the Court found a clear-cut breach of the 1955 Rules. It also found that the names, though were required to be called from the employment exchange, were not so called. The Court also **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 27 found fault with the procedure involved. We are afraid such is not the case in the present situation. No deviation from the rules or no inherent defect in the selection process which would render the whole selection illegal have either been alleged or proved.” 17. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 relied on a decision of the Apex Court in **Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and others [(2010) 12 SCC 576]** in support of his contentions. Paragraph 16 therein is relevant for the purpose of this case. It reads thus:- “ **16.** 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 **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 28 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in _Madan Lal_ v. _State of J&K_ , _Marripati Nagaraja_ v. _Govt. of A.P._ , _Dhananjay Malik_ v. _State of Uttaranchal_ , _Amlan Jyoti Borooah_ v. _State of Assam_ and _K.A. Nagamani_ v. _Indian Airlines_ .” (underline supplied) 18. The learned counsel also relied of the decision of the Apex Court in **Madras Institute of Development Studies and another v. K.Sivasubramaniyan and others (2016 1 SCC 454)** . Paragraphs 3 and 13 of the said decision are relevant and they read thus:- “3. Respondent 1-writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision dated 14-8-2006 on the ground inter alia that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that Respondent 1- writ petitioner having fulfilled all the requirements ought to have been selected to one of the three vacancies of Associate Professor. It was also alleged by Respondent 1-writ petitioner that there has been infraction of the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 29 ## recruitment rules. 13. 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 that he 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.” ## (underline supplied) 19. While considering the question whether a candidate who consciously participated in selection process could turn around and question the method of selection, the Apex Court referred to its earlier decisions in **G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585], Madan Lal v. State of J & K [(1995) 3 SCC 486], Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 (suppl.) SCC 285], Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [(2010) 12 SCC 576] and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [(2013) 11 SCC 309]** . The **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 30 discussion made by the Apex Court in the said decision, after referring to the aforementioned decisions, would reveal that the Apex Court had virtually restated its earlier view and did not deviate from the view that such a candidate could not challenge the selection process and further that the said general position got exceptions depending upon the factual position obtained in a given case. Thus, a survey of authorities would make the enunciation of law by the Apex Court on the subject very clear. As a general rule, the position is that a person who participated in selection process could not turn around and question the selection. 20. Bearing in mind the exposition of law on the aforesaid subject and also the exception available to the general rule, we will consider the factual matrix obtained in this case to decide whether the case on hand falls under the general rule or falls within any of its exceptions. 21. As noticed hereinbefore, the post of Head of the Bio Medical Technology Wing of the first respondent became vacant due to the retirement on superannuation of the Acting Head on **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 31 28.2.2014. Consequently, Annexure A1 advertisement/notification for appointment of Head, BMT was issued. The said notification itself prescribed the requisite qualifications. The petitioner and the sixth respondent who are in service candidates had also responded to the said notification and on being included among the 11 shortlisted candidates, they along with others, were interviewed on 28.9.2015. As noticed hereinbefore, there is no challenge against the constitution of the selection committee. Annexure A4 would reveal that the selection committee, after detailed examination of the technical strength and personal discussion with the candidates did not find any suitable candidate for the position from among the candidates interviewed including the petitioner and the sixth respondent. Annexure-A4 contained a recommendation on the following lines:- “The committee recommends a wider search for encouraging thought leaders to be nominated for the position from heads of the institutions/eminent scientists in the field and consider also deputation as a mode of appointment in addition the direct **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 32 recruitment”. Evidently, as recommended by the selection committee, a wider search was made. However, a solitary candidate had responded to the notification and he was also found not suitable for the post. The search process recommended under para.3(a) of Annexure-A6 was attempted according to the official respondents whereas the petitioner disputes the said assertion of the official respondents. The fact is that the second course recommended by the selection committee was decided to be followed by the governing body and pursuant to the said decision the petitioner and the sixth respondent, the two empanelled internal candidates recommended for consideration by the selection committee were invited to make discussions and presentations to the Governing Body. Admittedly, it is in this regard that the petitioner was required, as per communication dated 9.3.2016 to appear before the governing body on 19.3.2016. Obviously, the date fixed in that regard had to be postponed pursuant to the declaration of election. Thereupon, as per Annexure A10 letter dated 27.6.2016, the petitioner was invited for a personal discussion **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 33 and 15 minutes presentation on her “Vision for BMT Wing, SCTIMST”, on 30.7.2016 at 10 a.m. In the context of the contentions of the petitioner especially relating the competence of the selection committee to make recommendations, as has been made under Annexure-A6 and also impropriety, rather illegality in accepting the said recommendations, it is only appropriate to refer to the following recital in Annexure -A10. “Dear Dr. Prabha D Nair, Sub:Recruitment to the post of Head, BMT Wing, SCTMST I am pleased to inform you that you have been invited for a personal discussion and 15 minutes presentation on your “Vision for BMT Wing, SCTIMST”, on 30[th] July, 2016, at 10 AM during the Governing Body meeting scheduled to be held in Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016. This is according to the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Governing Body will finalize the selection.” That was followed by Annexure A11 dated 15.7.2016. Annexure-A11 is virtually a communication regarding the rescheduling of the meeting of the Governing Body, in fact, only in respect of the time fixed therefor. It was rescheduled at 9.30 **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 34 a.m instead of 10 a.m. The contention of the petitioner is that it is only on receipt of Annexure A11 that she came to know about the fact that along with her, another candidate was also invited for discussion and presentation for the purpose of appointment to the post of Head, BMT. We are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner can have a grievance regarding belated notice on the participation of another candidate as a reason for challenging the selection especially on the grounds raised in this original petition including the contentions referred hereinbefore. We are making this observation based on the grounds raised by the petitioner in the O.A as also in this original petition to challenge the process of selection. If they are upheld, virtually, it would invalidate the very candidature of the petitioner as well. This assumes relevance in the context of relief No.(C) in the original application. We will deal with that issue a little later. 22. In the context of the said contention founded on the alleged incompetency of the selection committee to make recommendation of the nature made as per Annexure-A6 and also the illegality in acting upon such recommendations, it is **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 35 relevant to refer to Annexure A8. It would reveal that as per order dated 24.5.2016, the President of the Institute had approved the appointment of the petitioner as the Acting Head of BMT Wing pursuant to the superannuation of the incumbent holding that post on 31.5.2016, until the post is filled through formal selection process. In the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner has specifically stated that she was the Acting Head of BMT Wing. On the strength of Annexure A8, the petitioner became a member of the Governing Body. This fact is evident from the materials on record including the Minutes of certain subsequent meetings of the Governing Body. A perusal of Annexures A10 and A11 would reveal that those call letters were actually issued only subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as Acting Head of BMT Wing. In such circumstances, how can the petitioner feign ignorance about the resolution of the Governing Body to invite the two internal candidates for such discussion and presentation, on 30.7.2016. We may hasten to add that in respect of any process conducted as part of selection, how can non-furnishing of the details regarding the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 36 other participants or even non-mentioning of the factum of participation of another candidate/other candidates would enable another participant to raise a challenge against the selection process. It is a fact that the petitioner was called upon for a personal discussion and 15 minutes presentation on her 'Vision for BMT Wing, SCTIMST' pursuant to the recommendations of the selection committee and the Governing Body would finalise the selection, was specifically stated in Annexure-A10 itself. As stated earlier, by then the petitioner had become a member of the General Body by virtue of her position as the Acting Head of BMT Wing. The petitioner did not have a case that she was absolutely unaware of AnnexureA6. In ground 5(7) of the O.A, what the petitioner had stated is that the illegal recommendation for nomination procedure recommended by the selection committee was approved by the Governing Body due to the non-disclosure of the fact that two candidates were found eligible for selection. Thus, according to the petitioner, the fact that herself and 6[th] respondent were found eligible for selection by the selection committee was not **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 37 disclosed to the Governing Body. The petitioner got no case that in Annexure-A6 what was recorded is that in the interview held on 28.9.2015, no candidate was found suitable for the post of Head of BMT Wing. A perusal of Annexure A6 itself would belie the said contention of the petitioner. Paragraph 1 of Annexure-A6 minutes of the meeting, it was stated thus:- “1.In response to advertisement to the post, 11 candidates were found eligible and appeared for personal discussion on 28.09.2015. The Committee found that 2 internal candidates met the basic requirements to Head the BMT Wing. The Committee decided then not to recommend any candidate at that stage and to cast the net wider by seeking nominations for the post. The last date of applications was extended to November 20, 2015” 23. Thus, a perusal of Annexure-A6 would reveal that the fact that the selection committee found two internal candidates met the basic requirements to Head the BMT Wing was specifically mentioned therein. Hence, the aforesaid contention in ground 5(7) of the O.A, which was again raised before us, cannot be true. At any rate, the very statement of the petitioner herself that she had been the Acting Head of BMT **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 38 Wing would be sufficient to conclude that the fact that the petitioner was aware of the fact that besides herself the 6[th] respondent was also found eligible for selection and they were the persons referred to as two empanelled internal candidates recommended for consideration by the selection committee. The method for finding out the suitable candidate among them was also suggested by the selection committee in Annexure-A6 on the following lines:- “These two candidates could be invited to make a presentation to the Governing Body and a suitable decision may be made.” It is pertinent to note at this juncture that Annexure-A6 would thus reveal that the selection committee, pursuant to the interview, found that the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent met the basic requirements to Head the BMT Wing. The fact is that subsequent to A11, the petitioner as also the sixth respondent were afforded with opportunity to have discussions and also to make presentation of 30 minutes each before the Governing Body and it is only thereafter that the sixth respondent was selected for appointment as Acting Head, BMT wing. In this **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 39 context, it is also relevant to refer to the Minutes of the 96[th] governing body meeting held at 9.30 a.m on 30.7.2016, the date on which the petitioner and the sixth respondent appeared before the governing body and made presentation as part of the selection process. The said document was made available before us for perusal pursuant to our oral direction to the counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 to make available the relevant records to verify at any point of time the petitioner had participated in any of the meetings of the Governing Body subsequent to Annexure A8. The minutes of the 96[th] governing body meeting thus made available for our perusal would reveal that on the same date, prior to the presentation from the candidates viz., the petitioner and the sixth respondent as part of the process of selection to the post of Head, BMT Wing, in her capacity as acting Head of BMT Wing, she had participated in the governing body meeting and thereafter before the governing body, she made a presentation on the same day in connection with the selection to the post of Head, BMT Wing. It is true that thereafter she abstained from attending the meeting when the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 40 sixth respondent made his presentation and had discussion as part of the selection process. At the same time, what is discernible from the Minutes of the 96[th] meeting and what is more relevant is that in the meeting held on 30.7.2016 just before her presentation before the Governing Body, along with other members of the Governing Body she had approved the minutes of the earlier Governing Body. It is in the said meeting that a decision was taken to accept the recommendation of the selection committee pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Head, BMT Wing and to invite two empannelled incumbents including the petitioner to make a presentation and to opt for a discussion. It would also reveal that pursuant to such decision taken earlier, on 9.3.2016 the date of presentation in that regard was fixed to be held on 19.3.2016. As noticed hereinbefore, the interview stated to be held on 19.3.2016 was postponed solely due to the declaration of election. These facts borne out from records are indisputable. They would go to show that realising the fact that the selection committee upon their failure to find out a suitable hand, recommended for **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 41 conducting a discussion with the internal candidates including the petitioner to effect appointment to the post of Head, BMT wing that she herself, in her capacity as a member of the Governing Body, approved the said recommendation, that too, realising the fact that she is one of the candidates to be invited for discussion along with the other candidate. As stated earlier, as per Annexure A10, the petitioner was made known that she was invited for personal discussion and to make 15 minutes presentation and the said course was adopted pursuant to recommendations by the selection committee and the selection to the post of Head, BMT wing would be finalised by the governing body. Thus, it is evident that even after seeing Annexure-A6 and receiving Annexure-A10, she participated in the General Body meeting held on 30.7.2016 and approved for conducting discussion and presentation as part of the selection process. It is to be noted that thus the petitioner had opportunities to make objection to the course recommended by the selection committee or to challenge the same as aspirant for the said post. However, she had chosen to participate in those **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 42 processes of selection without any demur and was taking a chance to get selected for the said post. Annexure A11 is issued in continuation of Annexure A10. As per the same, the petitioner was informed that the Governing Body meeting was rescheduled at 9.30 a.m instead of 10 a.m since there are two presentations of 30 minutes each, from candidates for the post of Head, BMT Wing. Evidently, the petitioner accepted the invitation and after participating in the Governing Body meeting which discussed the other matters, she had discussion and made a presentation before the other members of the governing body as part of the process for selection to the post of Head, BMT Wing. As stated in Annexure A10, the governing body, subsequent to the presentation made by the petitioner and the sixth respondent, finalised the selection to the post of Head, BMT and decided to appoint the sixth respondent and consequently, he was appointed to the said post on 3.8.2016. It is only subsequent to the appointment of the sixth respondent that the petitioner filed O.A.No. 945 of 2016 which culminated in the impugned order challenging the selection of the sixth **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 43 respondent. 21. We have already adverted to the contentions raised by the petitioner to challenge the process of selection which ended in the selection and appointment of the sixth respondent. The grounds raised by the petitioner if accepted, would have rendered the candidature of the petitioner invalid as regards the process of selection finalised by the governing body. We say so as the main grievance of the petitioner is that the governing body accepted the recommendations of the selection committee and adopted the method to provide an opportunity to two candidates including herself to make presentation in infraction of the prescribed procedures. In this original petition itself, in ground 'D”, the petitioner has raised a contention on the following lines:- D) The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the relevant rules provides that the appointment to the post Head of BMT Wing shall be made by the Governing Body on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The abdication of the said powers by the Selection Committee, tantamount to breach of Rule. Therefore the selection is vitiated and it can never come within the realm of curability, for **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 44 there, has been statutory non-compliance from the very inception of the selection. 22. In the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner had stated that the rule has not divested the power of appointment from the Governing Body while making provision for a selection committee. A scanning of Rule 7(iii) of the Rules would reveal that no procedures have been specifically provided thereunder though it is specifically provided that it is for the selection committee to make a representation for appointment to the post concerned. Going by Rule 7(iii) of the Rules, the selection committee should consist of the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India as Chairman, the Director, as ex-officio member and an expert to be nominated by the President as a member. Annexures A4 and A6 would reveal that the selection committee was constituted strictly in terms of Rule 7(iii) of the Rules. It is the said committee, after holding that both the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent met the basic requirements to head BMT, made the aforesaid suggestions as per Annexure-A6 in the circumstances mentioned therein. As a member of the Governing Body the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 45 petitioner had also endorsed the course recommended by the selection committee and then with open eyes and without any demur, participated in the selection process as recommended by the selection committee. In this context, it is also relevant to note that knowing fully that the selection committee, after conducting an interview of 11 candidates including herself, found no candidate suitable for appointment to the post and then recommended the procedures which were virtually accepted by the governing body for identifying the suitable candidate from among the two who were found possessing the basic requirements the petitioner had also participated in the selection process. Having approved the course recommended by the selection committee i.e, to afford opportunity to discussion and presentation to the internal candidates including herself and the 6[th] respondent thereafter making the presentation to enable the governing body to finalise the selection that the petitioner is turning around and challenging the selection process raising infraction of the procedures contemplated under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules and competency of **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 46 the selection committee to make recommendations and the impropriety, rather illegality, in acting upon the same by the Governing Body. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that it is only appropriate to borrow the expression employed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to describe the conduct on the part of the petitioner, in the decision in **Manish Kumar Shahi** 's case (supra). The Apex Court observed:- Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The conduct of the petitioner in making the discussion and then making a presentation before the Government in tune with the recommendations of the selection committee, to enable the Governing Body to finalise the selection that too, after approving the recommendations of the selection committee in the minutes of the earlier meeting would undoubtedly reveal that she was taking a chance. If she was selected she would have gladly accepted the entire procedures. **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 47 23. The grounds raised by the petitioner would reveal that the case now advanced by her is that having applied Rule 7(iii) of the Rules, the selection committee was entrusted with the task of identifying the suitable candidate and the committee was not therefore justified in abdicating its power. According to the petitioner, the recommendations made by the selection committee to effect wider search is ultra vires the power and scope of Rule 7(iii) of the Rules. But, the fact is that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Annexure-A4. Even after such a wider search, no suitable candidate could be found out. It is thereafter that the selection committee, as per Annexure A6, made further recommendations. Even then, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the proposal made as per Annexure-A6. The course adopted by the governing body based on the recommendation of the selection committee as per Annexure-A6 and as part of it the petitioner and the sixth respondent were invited for discussion and presentation. The said course recommended by the selection committee was decided to be followed by the Governing Body. Originally, the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 48 discussion and presentation were fixed to be held on 19.3.2016. It is also relevant to note that Minutes of the meeting held on 19.3.2016 was approved by the governing body in which she was also member. It is immediately thereafter that she made presentation as part of the selection process. In other words, it is after approving the same in her capacity as one of the members of the governing body that she had actually participated in the selection process and made presentation before other members of the governing body. In such circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is raising all the contentions which culminated in the selection of the sixth respondent only after her non-selection. It is also to be noted that it is not a case where the petitioner is having grievance against the constitution of the selection committee. After the finalisation of the selection to the post of Head, BMT Wing and finding that she was not selected that she is now raising all the contentions against the selection and the processes adopted therefor. She did not challenge the power of the governing body to finalise the selection process. Virtually, she was testing her **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 49 luck. Acknowledging the course suggested by the selection committee which was followed by the governing body and approving the right of the Governing Body to finalise the selection, the petitioner had participated in the selection process. It is only upon her non-selection and consequential appointment of the sixth respondent that she is turning around and challenging the selection of the sixth respondent raising infraction of the procedures adopted for the selection. In such circumstances, decision of the Apex Court in **Manish Kumar Shahi** 's case (supra) as also the decision in **Sivasubramaniyan** 's case assume relevance. In **Sivasubramaniyan's** case, Sivasubramaniyan who was the first respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variation in the contents of the advertisement and rules submitted application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the committee of experts who conducted selection to the post of Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor in Madras Institute of Development Studies. The Apex Court found that it was only after finding that he was not **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 50 selected for appointment that he turned around and challenged the selection process. In that case, the first respondent therein who was the writ petitioner sought only one relief i.e, to quash order of appointment of the other candidate. But he did not seek any relief as regards his own candidature and entitlement to the said post. In the case on hand, though the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the contentions raised by her in the OA as also in the original petition, if accepted, would make her a candidate disentitled to appear and make presentation before the governing body that convened to finalise the selection process inter alia sought for a declaration on the following lines:- “To declare that the applicant is eligible to be appointed as the Head, Bio Medical Technology Wing of the 1[st] respondent and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the applicant as the Head, Bio Medical Technology Wing of the 1[st] respondent.” 24. In this context, it is to be noted that if the petitioner is to be declared as eligible candidate to be appointed as Head, BMT Wing and if the direction as sought for is to be granted, the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 51 alleged infraction has to be approved. The petitioner who attributes infraction of the procedures prescribed under Rule 7(iii) of the Rules and on that ground raises the contention that the selection committee had stepped beyond its power in effecting recommendations and that the Governing Body had gone wrong in accepting and acting upon the recommendations of the selection committee cannot seek for a declaration as sought for. It is to be noted that the petitioner is not seeking for a direction to conduct fresh selection. As noticed hereinbefore, she seeks for a declaration that she is eligible to be appointed as Head of BMT Wing and for consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant her appointment to that post. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in **Manish Kumar Shahi** 's case (supra) in the contextual situation. In that case, the petitioner Manish Kumar took part in the process of selection concerned knowing fully well that more than 90% marks had been earmarked for viva voce test. It is only when he was not selected that he had chosen to challenge the criteria and process of selection. The contentions taken by **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 52 the petitioner therein to challenge the criteria as also the process of selection were repelled by the High Court. The Apex Court fully endorsed the findings and conclusions of the High Court in repelling the contentions. That apart, the Apex Court went on to hold that the said conduct of the petitioner clearly would disentitle him from questioning the selection. In view of the discussions as above, we are of the view that the general rule that a candidate who consciously taken part in the selection process cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, it is relevant to note that on 30.7.2016, the day on which discussion and presentation were made before the Governing Body, to be precise, immediately prior to the conduct of such processes, she participated in the meeting of the Governing Body and endorsed the suggested course of conducting discussion and presentation and also of the authority of the Governing Body to finalise the selection. At least, at that point of time, she could, in her capacity as one of the members of the Governing Body, raise objection against the **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 53 recommended course of action. The petitioner without any demur and fully realising the alleged deviation participated in the selection process and it is only on coming to know about her non-selection and consequential appointment of the 6[th] respondent that she has chosen to challenge the criteria as also the process of selection, as stated hereinbefore. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.945/2016. We do not find any merit in the original petition and consequently, it is dismissed. **Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **O.P.(CAT).6/2019** 54 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.180/00945 OF 2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH WITH ANNEXURES.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 9.12.2016 FILED IN O.A.NO. 180/00945/2016 ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 28.1.2018 FILED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN OA.NO. 180/00945/2016 of THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 15.2.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.180/00945/2016 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 IN O.A.NO.180/00945/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** ## **TKS/scl/spc**