## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN**
**FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934**
## **WP(C).No. 8911 of 2011 (L)**
## **--------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S): -------------**
**NIDHIN BABU M.,S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, 'AMUTHA, T.C NO.33/1129,PULIMOODU LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN**
## **RESPONDENT(S):**
**--------------**
**1. SREE CHITHRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR.**
**2. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW DELHI.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI,SC, SREE CHITHRA TIRUNAL INS R2 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WPC.8911/2011**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXT.P1: COPY OF HALL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 13.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R.I. ACT. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPLY DATED 1.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 13.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 17.3.2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 2.8.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
VPV
## **P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.**
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2012
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner, who possesses M.Sc degree in Statistics awarded by the University of Madras and M.Tech degree in Engineering Statistics awarded by the Cochin University of Science and Technology, applied pursuant to a notification dated 30.3.2010, issued by the Director of the first respondent institute for appointment to the post of Scientist-B (Bio Statistics/Statistics). He was called to appear for the written test held at 9.30 a.m. on 18.6.2010. It was stipulated in the hall ticket, a copy of which is Ext.P1, that the list of candidates shortlisted for interview will be published in the notice board of the institute by 1 p.m. on the same day and such candidates will have to report for interview at 3 p.m. on 18.6.2010 itself.
2. Pursuant to the notification dated 30.3.2010, 33 candidates applied. Out of them, 28 candidates attended the written test held on 18.6.2010. The petitioner who secured 32 out of 50 marks which was the highest mark and three other candidates who secured 31 marks out of 50, were interviewed on the same day. It appears, there was no further action in the matter. The petitioner therefore, sent Ext.P2 letter dated 13.1.2011 to the Principal Public Information Officer of the
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
2
first respondent institute asking for the result of the interview held on 18.6.2010 for the post of Scientist-B (Bio Statistics/Statistics). By Ext.P3 letter dated 1.2.2011, the Principal Public Information Officer of the first respondent institute informed him that nobody was selected for the post of Scientist-B in the interview held on 18.6.2010. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P4 letter dated 13.2.2011 requesting for copies of the mark lists of all the candidates who participated in the written test held on 18.6.2010, the mark lists of all the candidates who attended the interview held on 18.6.2010, a copy of the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Scientist-B (Bio Statistics/Statistics) and a copy of his answer sheet. When no reply was received, he filed Ext.P5 appeal before the State Information Commissioner.
3. While matters stood thus, the Director of the first respondent institute issued Ext.P6 notification inviting applications for appointment to various posts including one post of Scientist-B (Bio Statistics/Statistics). The upper age limit was stipulated as 30 years as on 31.3.2011. The last date stipulated for submission of applications was 11.4.2011. The petitioner did not apply pursuant to Ext.P6 notification. Instead, even before the last date expired, he filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
_"(a) Call for the records leading to the selection conducted by the 1[st] respondent to the post of Scientist-B_
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
3
_(Bio Statistics/Statistics) held on 18.6.2010 and issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to proceed with the selection process held on 18.6.2010._
_(b) To declare that the entire selection process pursuant to Ext.P6 notification is illegal, and tainted with malafides in case the 1[st] respondent is appointing a candidate who was interviewed on 18.6.2010 along with the petitioner._
_(c) To stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 notification pending disposal of the Writ Petition."_
4. It is contended that it is with a view to bypass the petitioner who had done well in the written test held on 18.6.2010 that Ext.P6 notification inviting applications has been issued and that a fresh selection process has been initiated for the purpose of accommodating a candidate who participated in the selection process along with petitioner on 18.6.2010. The petitioner has however not chosen to name the candidate. In short, his contention is that Ext.P6 notification has been issued with a view to ensure that another candidate who appeared along with him for interview on 18.6.2010 after being short listed, had not done well in the interview and therefore, a fresh notification has been issued to accommodate that candidate.
5. The first respondent has pursuant to the order passed by this Court, filed a statement dated 21.6.2011. It is stated therein that
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
4
though the petitioner who secured 32 marks in the written test held on 18.6.2010 and three other candidates who secured 31 marks, were interviewed by the Senior Staff Selection Committee, it was found that performance of all the four candidates was unsatisfactory and therefore, no one was selected and this fact was communicated to the petitioner in Ext.P3 letter dated 1.2.2011. It is also stated since no candidate was selected in the year 2010, a fresh notification was issued, that after a written test was held in May 2011, 6 candidates were short listed and called for interview and that in the interview the performance of 4 candidates was found unsatisfactory, and the performance of 2 candidates was found to be satisfactory, and the 2 candidates, whose performance was found to be satisfactory are fresh candidates who had not applied pursuant to the notification dated 30.3.2010. It is also stated that an offer of appointment was given to Ms.Jissa V.T., the candidate ranked first, subject to the outcome of this writ petition and that she was not a candidate who had applied pursuant to the notification dated 30.3.2010 or had appeared for the written test held on 18.6.2010. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein the only contention put forward by him is that the marks secured by Ms.Jissa V.T. in the selection held in 2011 has not been made available and that the marks secured by the candidates in the
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
5
interview held on 18.6.2010 have not been furnished. The petitioner has along with I.A.No.16103 of 2011 produced as Ext.P7, a letter dated 2.8.2011 sent by the Principal Public Information Officer of the first respondent institute wherein it is mentioned that in the interview held on 18.6.2010, marks were not awarded to any of the candidates who appeared for the interview and their performance was recorded as unsatisfactory. Referring to Ext.P7 it is contended that the procedure adopted was illegal and unsustainable.
6. I heard Sri.K.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The only contention raised in the writ petition is that a fresh selection process has been initiated with a view to favour a candidate, who had appeared along with the petitioner in the written test and interview held on 18.6.2010. The petitioner also relies on the failure of the Principal Public Information Officer, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science & Technology, to furnish a timely reply to Ext.P4 letter as one which gives credence and support to his contention that a fresh notification was issued with a view to favour a candidate, who had participated in the earlier selection process. The statement filed on behalf of the first respondent discloses that none of the two candidates, whose performance was found to be satisfactory in
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
6
the interview held pursuant to the fresh notification, had participated in the earlier selection process. It is also stated that the candidate who was given appointment subject to the outcome of this writ petition is Ms.Jissa.V.T and that she had not applied pursuant to the notification dated 30.3.2010. The petitioner has no case in the writ petition or in the reply affidavit that it was with a view to favour Ms.Jissa.V.T., who was ultimately selected though subject to the outcome of this writ petition, that the fresh notification was issued. The only case in the writ petition is that a fresh notification has been issued with a view to favour some one, who had participated in the selection process held pursuant to the first notification. In the absence of any case for the petitioner that the second notification was issued with a view to favour the candidate now selected, I am of the opinion that nothing turns on the failure of the selection committee to award marks in the interview to the four candidates who appeared in the interview held on 18.6.2010.
## 7. The Supreme Court has in _**National Institute of Mental**_
_**Health & Neuro Sciences v. K.K.Raman,**_ AIR 1992 SC 1806, held that the function of the selection committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, but purely administrative and in the absence of any such legal requirement, the selection made without recording reasons
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
7
cannot be found fault with. It was held that an administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision, that even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a selection committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person, in the absence of statutory requirement in that regard. Though the petitioner has raised a contention in the reply affidavit that failure to award marks in the interview and grading the performance of a candidate as satisfactory or unsatisfactory gives room for arbitrariness, he has not placed reliance on any rule or regulation which obliges the selection committee to record reasons as to why a candidate is selected or not selected. I am therefore of the opinion that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
8. As stated earlier, apart from contending that the selection is vitiated for the reason that the fresh notification was issued to favour a candidate who had not succeeded earlier, the petitioner has not raised any other contention in the writ petition. He has no case that the selection committee or the Director of the first respondent institute had anything against him or that it was with a view to ensure that he is not selected that the selection process was dropped and a fresh notification was issued. In the absence of a case for the
W.P.(C) No.8911 of 2011
8
petitioner that his non-selection is on account of extraneous considerations, I am of the opinion that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE**
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. To JUDGE
vpv
