High Court · 2012

Besides Dr. Binay Singh, the petitioner, in WP(C) 1095/2012 and who is respondent No. 3 in WP(C) 1884/2012, some other persons, including Dr. Subhas C handra Srivastava, who is respondent No. 1 in WP(C) 1095/2012 as well as WP(C) 1 884/2012 (who is hereinafter referred to as respondent-applicant No.1), applied for the post of Director, NIRD, North Eastern Regional Centre. A selection comm ittee was constituted by the NIRD for selection of candidate for the post of Dir ector, NIRD, NERC. Having interviewed the candidates, who had applied for the s aid advertised post, the selection committee, based on the academic achievement, relevant experience and overall performance as well as presentation of the cand idates in the interview, recommended the name of Dr. Binay Singh for appointment to the post of Director, NIRD, North Eastern Regional Centre. Based on the rec ommendations, so made by the selection committee, Dr. Binay Singh was appointed as the Director, NIRD, NERC. 4. Aggrieved by the selection and appointment of Dr. Binay Singh to the pos t of Director, as indicated above, Dr. Subhas Chandra Srivastava (i.e., applican t-respondent No.1) put to challenge the appointment of Dr. Binay Singh by way of Original Application 117/2010 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, his case being, in brief, thus: Dr. Binay Singh neither had Ph.D. in any of the disciplines of Social Sciences nor did he possess the requisite experien ce, as had been mentioned in the advertisement, for the post. In support of his contention that Ph.D., in horticulture, which Dr. Binay Singh had acquired, did not fall within the discipline of Social Sciences, the applicant-respondent No. 1 also pleaded, in his Original Application, that the Indian Council of Social S cience Research has informed the respondent that under the scheme of (cid:28)Dewey Deci mal Classification (cid:29) (for short, ’DDC’), horticulture did not figure under any of the disciplines of Social Science; rather, horticulture, under the scheme of De wey Decimal Classification, has been classified as an applied science. 5. Controverting the contention of the applicant-respondent No. 1, Dr. Subh as Chandra Srivastava, that horticulture did not figure within the disciplines o f Social Science in (cid:28)Dewey Decimal Classification scheme (cid:29), the NIRD contended th at the importance and relevance of the knowledge of horticulture formed an integ ral part of rural development, particularly, in the context of India and, theref ore, a Ph.D., in horticulture, could have been regarded, and had been rightly re garded, as a Ph.D. within the disciplines of Social Science and, considering the relevance of the subject in which Dr. Binay Singh had obtained his Ph.D., his s election and appointment to the post of Director, NIRD, NERC, were unassailable.

6. While contesting the Original Application, which the applicant-responden t No.1 had filed, the NIRD did not dispute the fact that out of the three catego ries of experience, as had been advertised, Dr. Binay Singh did not fulfill the requirements of 10 years’ experience in teaching in a recognized University or t raining in a recognized institution in Rural Development planning and related di sciplines of which, at least, 5 years’ experience had to be in planning and cond ucting Research at the level of a Reader of a University or equivalent thereto a nd minimum of three years of working as head of an Organisation/Centre/Faculty o r Department engaged in Rural Development Research and Training. The NIRD, howev er, contended, in the Original Application, that Dr. Binay Singh satisfied the r equirement of minimum of three years of working experience as Head of an Organis ation/Centre/Faculty or Department engaged in Rural Development Research and Tra ining, which the advertisement prescribed. In support of their contention that Dr. Binay Singh had the requisite ex 7. perience, as mentioned in the advertisement, the NIRD submitted that Dr. Binay S ingh had been holding the post of Advisor (Horticulture) in the Secretariat, Nor th Eastern Council, Ministry of Development of NER, Govt. of India, for 5 (five) years and he was also holding the additional charge of NE Regional Community Re sources Management Project as Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist f rom 29.11.2002 to 30.04.2003 and, again, from 30.09.2008 to 14.11.2008. The NIR D further contended that Dr. Binay Singh had also looked after HRD & E Sector fr om 2005 to 2007. 8. Even Dr. Binay Singh, (who is, now, petitioner in WP(C) 1095/2012), took the same stand, in support of his eligibility for the post of Director, NIRD, N ERC, as had been taken by the NIRD in the Original Application. 9. Having, however, taken the view that horticulture does not fall within the discipline of Social Science and that Dr. Binay Singh was not academically qualified to be selected for, and appointed to, the post of Director, NIRD, NERC , and that, as regards the experience, too, Dr. Binay Singh had not been functio ning and had no experience of having functioned as head of an Organization/Centr e/Faculty or Department engaged in Rural Development, research and training, as mentioned in the advertisement, the learned Tribunal concluded, by referring to the case of Madan Mohan Sharma and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others, re ported in (2008) 3 SCC 724, that recruitment could be made only according to the advertised educational qualifications and experience and that since the selecti on of Dr. Binay Singh had the effect of diluting the eligibility conditions ment ioned in the advertisement, the order of appointment of Dr. Binay Singh to the p ost of Director, NIRD, NERC, Guwahati, was illegal. The learned Tribunal has acc ordingly set aside and quashed, by its order, dated 05.01.2012, the recommendati ons of the selection committee, made in favour of Dr. Binay Singh, as well as th e appointment of Dr. Binay Singh to the post of Director, NIRD, NERC.

10. Aggrieved by the decision, so rendered by the learned Tribunal, Dr. Bina y Singh and the NIRD have filed, as already indicated above, two separate writ p etitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition, fil ed by Dr. Binay Singh, having given rise to WP(C) 1095/2012; whereas the writ pe tition, filed by the NIRD, having given rise to WP(C) 1884/2012.

11. Assailing the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, Mr. J.L. Sarkar, l earned counsel, appearing for the NIRD, has submitted that the applicant-respond ent No.1, Dr. Subhas Chandra Srivastava, had, while setting out his case before the learned Tribunal, placed reliance on Dewy Decimal Classification (in short, ’DDC’) as the basis for contending that horticulture does not fall within any of the disciplines of Social Science and the learned Tribunal committed serious er ror of law in holding Dr. Binay Singh educationally not qualified to be selecte d or appointed to the post of Director, NIRD, NERC, in terms of the advertisemen t, which NIRD had issued. 12. The learned Tribunal was also incorrect, contends Mr. Sarkar, learned co unsel, in taking the view that Dr. Binay Singh, who has been selected and appoi nted as Director, NERC, did not have the adequate experience inasmuch as Dr. Bin ay Singh, according to Mr. Sarkar, had functioned as Head of Organizations inas much as he had acted, submits Mr. Sarkar, as Advisor (Horticulture) in the Secre tariat, North Eastern Council, Ministry of Development of NER, Govt. of India, f or five years and he had held the additional charge of NE Regional Community Res ources Management Project as Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist. 13. It is also submitted, on behalf of the NIRD, that the essential qualific ations, prescribed by the advertisement, were subject to the General Conditions, wherein Clauses (i) read: (cid:28)(i) All India Service Officers and other suitable S enior Govt. Officers Bankers (Both Central and State) are also eligible for indu ction in the faculty of NIRD on deputation basis. Ph.D is preferred but not mand atory in the case of such officers with suitable experience in Training and Rese arch relevant to the activities of the institute. (cid:29) 14. Referring to Clause (i), Mr. Sarkar contends that Ph.D, for All India Se rvice Officer, is ’preferable’ and not ’essential’. Mr. Sarkar contends that Dr. Binay Singh was an All India Service Officer inasmuch as he is an employee of the North-Eastern Council (popularly known as ’NEC’) and, in this view of the ma tter, the learned Tribunal seriously erred in holding that Dr. Binay Singh did n ot have either requisite educational qualification or experience as mentioned in the advertisement, in question.

15. DDC is a system, according to Mr. Sarkar, which is used in libraries for organizing the publications on various subjects so that it becomes easier for a person to locate the publications, but DDC is not an authority for deciding as to whether a particular subject falls within the discipline of Social Science or not.

16. Moreover, points out Mr. Sarkar, National Institute of Rural Development aims at ameliorating the conditions of people in rural areas and from this pers pective, too, horticulture would play a special role in achieving this object an d, hence, a person, who had Ph.D in horticulture, could not have been held to be , in terms of the advertisement, educationally not disqualified for being appoin ted to the post of Director, NIRD, NERC. 17. Lastly, it is contended by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel, that NIRD consti tuted an expert body and it is this expert body, which had selected Dr. Binay S ingh as a person qualified and suitable to be appointed as Director, NERC, and, in this regard, the expert body had taken the view that he had the requisite aca demic qualification, namely, Ph.D, in the discipline of Political Science, and a lso the essential experience and an expert body’s decision could not have been i nterfered with, and ought not to have been interfered with, by the learned Tribu nal. In support of his contention, Mr. Sarkar places reliance on Bihar Public Se rvice Commission and others Vs. Kamini and others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 519, Y. Gopal Krishna Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Medical Sciences & others, rep orted in 2010 (3) GLT 737, Deputy Director of Public Instruction and District Re cruitment Authority and others Vs. Shaik Moula and another, reported in (2006) 1 2 SCC 370, and University of Mysore Vs. CD Govinda Rao and another (AIR 1965 SC 491). 18. Adopting the arguments of Mr. Sarkar, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel, app earing for Dr. Binay Singh, has reiterated that DDC cannot be made basis for de ciding the question as to whether horticulture is one of the disciplines of Soci al Science or not. Social Science, according to Mr. Dutta, includes within its f old many disciplines of Science and, in this view of the matter, it was incorrec t to hold that horticulture was not one of the disciplines of Social Science and that horticulture is applied Science.

19. Mr. Dutta also submits that Dr. Binay Singh had adequate experience too and the learned Tribunal committed grave error in holding him not qualified, eit her academically or experience wise, for selection and appointment to the post o f Director, NIRD, NERC, in terms of the advertisement, in question, when an expe rt body has selected Dr. Binay Singh and he has already been appointed and his term would be over in the month of February, 2013. 20. Appearing on behalf of the applicant-respondent No.1, Dr. Subhas Srivast ava, Mr. TH Hazarika, learned counsel, supporting the impugned order, contends t hat DDC is an appropriate process for determination as to whether a particular s ubject falls within a given discipline or not and the learned Tribunal committed no error in relying upon the classification made under DDC. Mr. Hazarika, learn ed counsel, also submits that even Indian Council of Social Science Research has , in a written information given to the applicant-respondent No.1, Dr. Subhas Sr ivastava, has conveyed that under the scheme of DDC, horticulture does not figur e under any of the disciplines of Social Science. 21. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, points out that the petitioner, Dr. Binay Singh, did not have requisite experience inasmuch as the experience, which he w as relying upon, is an experience, which could not have been regarded as the exp erience, which the advertisement, in question, demanded. Dr. Binay Singh, according to Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, was not ev 22. en an All India Service Officer or any Government Officer or Banker and, hence, Ph.D, in any of the disciplines of Social Science, was an essential academic qua lification for him and his case was not covered by the General Conditions of Rec ruitment as had been mentioned in the advertisement, in question. According to M r. Hazarika, learned counsel, even the Selection Committee did not consider Dr. Binay Singh as an All India Service Officer or a Government Officer or Banker. 23. As regards the contention that it was an expert body, which had selected Dr. Binay Singh, and, hence, his selection ought not to have been interfered w ith, Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, has taken us through the Comparative Chart, which has been prepared by, or for, the expert body, which the NIRD had constitu ted. In this Chart, Mr. Hazarika points out, the column of the petitioner, as a person having requisite experience of three years as the Head of the Department, had been left blank inasmuch as Dr. Binay Singh, points out Mr. Hazarika, is s hown to have joined as a professor on 31.03.2009 and, hence, he had barely worke d for a few months before he was selected in violation of the advertisement and while Dr. Binay Singh had been functioning as Advisor (Horticulture) in the Secr etariat, North Eastern Council, Ministry of Development of NER, Govt. of India, and/or when he held the additional charge of N.E. Regional Community Resources M anagement Project as Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist, North Eas tern Council, Ministry of Development of NER, Govt. of India, he had neither fun ctioned as the Head of Department, NEC Secretariat, nor had he functioned, in hi s capacity of Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist, as the Head of t he N.E. Regional Community Resources Management Project. 24. As against many infirmities with which the selection of Dr. Binay Singh suffered from, the applicant-respondent No.1, Dr. Subhas Chandra Srivastava, po ints out Mr. Hazarika, had his Ph.D in Economics, which is, admittedly, one of t he disciplines of Social Science and he was having, even according to the Compar ative Chart, which the expert body had relied upon, requisite experience of havi ng functioned as Professor and Head of Department; but ignoring him and ignoring also the fact, contends Mr. Hazarika, that Dr. Binay Singh did not have either minimum qualification or requisite experience, Dr. Binay Singh has been arbitra rily selected by the expert body and, hence, his selection was rightly not susta ined by the learned Tribunal. 25. Further contends Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, appearing for the applic ant-respondent No.1, Dr. Subhas Chandra Srivastava, that merely because of the f act that Dr. Binay Singh had been selected by a body, which the NIRD had consti tuted and called the expert body, the said body could not have been treated as a n expert body, when the learned Tribunal found that the selection of Dr. Binay Singh ex facie suffered from infirmities and, in this situation, the learned Tri bunal was within the ambit of its powers in interfering with the selection and a ppointment of Dr. Binay Singh and in setting the same aside. Mr. Hazarika has also pointed out that according to the information rece 26. ived from the Indian Council of Social Science Research, horticulture, in terms of the DDC, did not fall under any of the disciplines of Social Science and, he nce, Dr. Binay Singh could not have been held to have Ph.D in any of the discipl ines of Social Science. Coming to the submissions made by Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae 27. , it needs to be taken note of, as has been pointed out by the learned amicus cu riae, that the term, ’Social Science’, refers to an academic discipline, which i s concerned with the study of society and human behaviour and this term is used as an umbrella to refer to a number of subjects, such as, anthropology, archaeol ogy, criminology, economics, education, history, linguistics, communication stud ies, political science, international relations, sociology, human geography, and psychology and Social Science includes elements of other fields as well, such a s, law, cultural studies, environmental studies and social work. 28. Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber are, further points out the lear ned amicus curiae, regarded as the principal architects of modern social science . Because of the fact that Social Science relates to the study of society 29. and human behaviour, the subject of Social Science is, according to the learned amicus curiae, an ever expanding subject. Nonetheless, submits the learned amic us curiae, Social Science is still considered as the study of human society and social relationships, including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science and history. 30. Social Science, as a field of study, is, submits the learned amicus curi ae, separate from the natural sciences, which cover topics, such as, physics and chemistry, but economics, political science, history, law and geography can be considered, and are considered, as disciplines of Social Science. 31. Horticulture, on the other hand, submits the learned amicus curiae, is a n applied science inasmuch as it involves the study of science, technology and b usiness in intensive plant cultivation for human use. In this regard, the lear ned amicus curiae points out that horticulturists apply knowledge of science, sk ill and technology to grow intensively produced plants for use as human food and non-food for personal or social needs. Study of horticulture, according to Mr. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, aims at improving plant growth, yields, qualit y, quality, nutritional value and resistance to insects, diseases and environmen tal stresses. 32. The learned amicus curiae points out that the bio data of Dr. Binay Sin gh reveals that the topic of his research was to study the effect on micronutrie nts on being treated with acid lime (Kaji lemon). Micronutrients, points out th e learned amicus curiae, are those constituents of food, which are required in m icro quantities in the diet and nutrients are mainly divided into carbohydrates, lipids (fats) and proteins, which are required in larger quantities. Minerals a nd vitamins are termed micronutrients. Further submits the learned amicus curi ae that micronutrients are required in minute amounts to maintain a healthy diet . 33. To address the issue as to whether the petitioner had a Ph.D. in one of the disciplines of Social Science, the scope and ambit of the topic/area of inte rest in which the research was carried out during the quest for the Ph.D. degree ought to have been, according Mr. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, looked into.

34. It is the submission of Mr. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, that the to pic of research, as indicated in the bio-data annexed to the writ petition would , if taken at face value, indicate that the study was restricted only to the eff ect of treating micronutrients with the acid lime and, in such a case, it would be a research paper on a discipline of natural science. Had the research been on the effect of such ’treated’ micronutrients on the society or section of societ y, then, it could have, perhaps, been regarded as a research on a discipline of Social Science. 35. Before entering into the question as to whether Dr. Binay Singh had req uisite academic qualification, we place it on record that this Court made a poin ted query as to how the body, which had been constituted by the NIRD, can be reg arded as expert body to determine whether the given subject falls within any of the disciplines of social science or not, Mr. Sarkar could not give any satisfac tory response. To another query made by this Court as to how Mr. Binay Singh can be described as an All India Service Officer, when he was an employee of an aut onomous body, such as, North Eastern Council, which has been constituted under t he North Eastern Council Act, 1971, Mr. Sarkar could not give any answer. 36. Because of what have been pointed out above, we have no hesitation in ta king the view that Dr. Binay Singh cannot be regarded as an All India Service Of ficer nor can he be regarded as a government officer or banker and, in his case, Ph.D. was an essential academic qualification.

37. No wonder, therefore, that even the Selection Committee, which the NIRD had constituted, did not record, in the case of Dr. Binay Singh, Ph.D. as a pref erential academic qualification; rather, even in the case of Dr. Binay Singh, Ph .D. has been treated by the Selection Committee as an essential academic qualifi cation. This impression gets strengthened from the fact that it was never conte nded before the learned Tribunal that Ph.D., in any of the disciplines of social sciences, was not an essential qualification so far as Dr. Binay Sing was conce rned. 38. Coupled with the above, one may also point out that the learned amicus c uriae is correct in submitting before us that the term, ’Social Science’ appears to have originated from ’Science of Society’ established in the 19th Century So ciology (Latin ’Socius’ meaning companion and ’Ology’ meaning the study of). Th is apart, Social Science is defined as any scholastic discipline or scientific f ield that investigates human society and the subject of Social Science grew from moral philosophy, in contrast to natural sciences, which are defined and record ed as sciences that are experimental and applied. The generally accepted branch es of social science include anthropology, economics, history, political science , psychology, sociology, education, geography, law, linguistics, criminology and archaeology. Most fields of study, outside the field of natural science, are c onsidered social science. The disciplines of social science tend to examine and study man’s interactions to his fellow man and with the society. Social scienc e, in its broadest sense, can be understood to be the study of society and the r elationships of individuals within a society. In modern academic practice, multi ple methodologies are used and there appears to be a cross-fertilization of idea s from scientific study of many branches including the disciplines covered by na tural sciences, but such branches cannot be regarded as Social Science. 39. The learned amicus curiae is also correct in pointing out that horticult ure is the science, technology and business involved in intensive plant cultivat ion for human use and that the study of horticulture aims at improving plant gro wth, yields, quality, nutritional value and resistance to insects, diseases and environmental stresses.

40. Further-more, the bio-data of Dr. Binay Singh, as has been correctly poi nted out by the learned amicus curiae, reveals that the topic of his research wa s, as already indicated above, study of the effect on micronutrients on being tr eated with acid lime (Kaji lemon). This was purely a scientific study or rese arch and Dr. Binay Singh could not have been, therefore, regarded to have obtain ed Ph.D. in any of the disciplines of Social Science. 41. The contention of the petitioners that horticulture is a subject necessa ry and helpful in the matters of rural development may be correct. But this woul d not make horticulture a discipline of Social Science; whereas, the advertiseme nt specifically required a candidate to have Ph.D. in any of the disciplines of Social Science. Had the NIRD, while advertising the post of Director, called fo r applications from persons, whose educational/academic qualifications would hel p rural development, the situation might have been different. 42. Be that as it may, coming to the experience, it is noteworthy that it ha s not been in dispute before us that the advertisement, in question, prescribed two distinct categories of experiences, which we may reproduce below: (cid:28)(b) Experience: 10 years’ experience in teaching in a recognized University or training in a recognized institution in Rural Development planning and related d isciplines of which at least 5 years should be in planning and conducting Resear ch at the level of a Reader of a University or equivalent thereto. Minimum of 3 years of experience of working as Head of an organization/Centre/Faculty or Dep artment engaged in Rural Development research and training. (Emphasis is a dded) 43. Out of these two categories of experiences, it is an admitted position t hat Dr. Binay Singh did not possess 10 years’ experience of teaching in a recogn ized University or training in a recognized institution in Rural Development pla nning and related disciplines of which, at least, 5 years’ experience was, as pr escribed by the advertisement, in question, in planning and conducting Research at the level of a Reader of a University or equivalent thereto, nor did Dr. Bina y Singh possess, we find, 3 years’ experience of having worked as a head of an O rganization/Centre/Faculty or Department engaged in Rural Development research a nd training. However, according to the petitioners, Dr. Binay Singh satisfied th e requisite experience. Is this contention of the petitioners correct and susta inable ? While considering the question, posed above, one cannot ignore the fact 44. that the Comparative Statement of experience, which the Selection Committee (cal led as an expert body by NIRD) had relied upon, shows that unlike Dr. Subhas Cha ndra Srivastava (the applicant-respondent No. 1), Dr. Binay Singh was not shown to have the minimum experience of three years as prescribed by the advertisement , in question. In fact, the Comparative Statement shows that in respect of Dr. Binay Singh, under the heading of ’Experience’, the column for filling up requi site experience, as Head of an Organization/ Centre/Faculty or Department engage d in Rural Development research and training, was left blank. This apart, the b io data, which was furnished to the Selection Committee, shows that Dr. Binay S ingh joined as Professor, Department of Forestry, in the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) on 31.03.2009. He had, therefore, clearly worked as Professor, Department of Forestry, NERIST, for a few months an d he had not functioned as the Head of the Department of Forestry, in NERIST, fo r the requisite period of three years. In fact, this position could not dispute d before us. For a clearer appreciation of the matter, however, the relevant pa rt of the Comparative Statement aforementioned is reproduced below: Name ce (years) As HOD SC Srivastava 5 yrs (including present position) Binay Singh gri. (Horticul- ture) Date of birth Total service experi- ence MA/M.Sc. (55%+) Ph.D Prof & HOD 3 yrs More than 3 yrs 4 months Professor, NERIST 20 years 12yrs including present position Present position with ye Experien Experience (years) Ass. Prof/Prof Economics 16 years M. Sc. A -

45. From the above Comparative Statement, there can be no escape from the co nclusion that as far as Dr. Binay Singh was concerned, he did not have the requ isite experience of three years as Head of an Organization/Centre/Faculty or Dep artment engaged in Rural Development research and training. In this regard, we may point out, as already indicated above, that Dr. Binay Singh claims to have served as an Adviser in the field of Horticulture and Allied Sector in the Secre tariat, North Eastern Council, Shillong, for a period of five years. Dr. Singh a lso contends that he held the additional charge of North Eastern Region Communit y Resources Management Project as Programme Coordinator and Development Strategi st. The experience acquired, while working as an Advisor in the field of Horticu lture and Allied Sector in the Secretariat, North Eastern Council, Shillong, can not be regarded as experience of Head of an Organization/ Centre/Faculty or Depa rtment engaged in Rural Development research and training nor can the experience , acquired as the Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist, in the North Eastern Region Community Resources Management Project, can be treated to be exp erience of Head of an organization/Centre/Faculty or Department engaged in Rural Development research and training. Thus, even the experience of having worked as Advisor and/or Programme C 46. oordinator and Development Strategist, mentioned hereinbefore, does not satisfy the requirement of experience prescribed by the advertisement. The petitioners b efore us, neither the NIRD nor Dr. Binay Singh, could show as to how Dr. Binay Singh can be said to have satisfied the requirement of requisite experience, wh ich the advertisement, in question, demanded. 47. Irrespective, therefore, of the fact as to whether horticulture falls wi thin any of the disciplines of social science or not, we have absolutely no hesi tation in holding that the learned Tribunal was wholly correct in taking the vie w that Dr. Binay Singh did not have the requisite experience in terms of the adv ertisement, particularly, when we notice, if we may reiterate, that the Comparat ive Statement of educational qualification and experience, prepared in the prese nt case, clearly shows that, in respect of Dr. Binay Singh, the column, meant fo r showing the experience of 3 (three) years as Head of an organization/Centre/Fa culty or Department engaged in Rural Development research and training, had been left blank. This apart, the body, which the NIRD had constituted, could not be shown to be an expert body and there is nothing on record to show nor could anyt hing be placed before us exhibiting that the persons, who constituted the select ion committee, were competent to determine if a particular discipline does or do es not fall within the ambit of social science. 48. What surfaces from the above discussion is that the infirmities, in the process of selection, are writ at large, when we notice the column of experience , in the Comparative Statement, which the expert body relied upon, had been left blank in respect of Dr. Binay Singh, who claims that he had the requisite exper ience of having functioned as Head of Department for a period of three years. When the decision making process suffers from consideration of any irrel 49. evant fact or suffers from exclusion of any relevant fact, the decision cannot b e said to have withstood the test of fair selection. 50. Though it is, no doubt, true that the appointment of Dr. Binay Singh wo uld come to end in the month of February, 2013, the fact of the matter remains t hat he was selected, appointed and allowed to hold the post, when he was not eve n qualified to be considered for selection, and whose candidature ought to have been rejected outright in the light of the essential qualification, which the ad vertisement, in question, had prescribed and which Dr. Binay Singh had failed to satisfy. The NIRD, thus, allowed Dr. Binay Singh to usurp the post, which he was not entitled to hold. Consequently, allowing Dr. Binay Singh to hold any fu rther the post of Director, NERC, would not only be illegal, but will be wholly irrational, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and against good conscience. 51. The mere fact that a Selection Committee, which could not be shown to be an expert body, had selected Dr. Binay Singh for the post of Director, NIRD (NE RC) cannot, by itself, be a reason for allowing Dr. Binay Singh to hold the post of the Director even when he did not satisfy the essential conditions of recrui tment and appointment, as prescribed by the advertisement aforementioned. 52. We may pause here to point out that the scheme of Dewey Decimal Classifi cation, as has rightly been submitted by the learned amicus curiae, is used in 2 ,00,000 libraries in, at least, 135 countries. The Dewey Decimal Classification is a system of library classification made up of ten classes, each divided into ten divisions, each having ten sections, although there are only 99 of 100 divi sions and 908 of 999 sections in total, as some are no longer in use or have not been assigned.

53. The Dewey Decimal Classification is not the yardstick to determine if a particular subject falls within a given discipline or not inasmuch as the scheme of Dewey Decimal Classification is used for the purpose of arranging various pu blications, in a library, making it easier for anyone to locate the publication. To this extent, the grievance of the petitioners has force. Even if, however, the Dewey Decimal Classification is not applied for the purpose of determining a s to whether horticulture is one of the disciplines of social sciences or not, t he fact of the matter remains that in the case of candidates, such as, Dr. Binay Singh, when he did not satisfy the requirement of requisite period of experienc e, he could not have been, and ought not to have been, selected and appointed to the post of Director, NIRD (NERC), throwing to the wind the terms and condition s, which a candidate was required to satisfy in the light of the advertisement i n question. The selection and appointment of Dr. Binay Singh, thus, suffered fr om inherent lack of satisfaction of essential qualifications, which the advertis ement, in question, had prescribed. Interference by the learned Tribunal, in a case of present nature, cannot, therefore, be said to be faulty, erroneous or wi thout jurisdiction. 54. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not fin d that the impugned decision of the learned Tribunal suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere, by invoking our ex tra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with t he impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 55. stand dismissed. 56. Both the writ petitions, therefore, fail and the same shall accordingly No order as to costs.