Maniusri Vs.State of Andhra Pradeshl, Hemani Malltotra v. Ifigh Court of DelhF, Mohd. Suhtab Khan Vs. Aligarh Muslim Universiqn, Bishnu Bis

2810812023 passed in WP No.31494 Of 2016 on the fite of rhe High Court. Between: Neelam L^avanya, ageg 48 years D/o Sri N Kumara Swamy occ scientific officer Bp and MC 0/o National Institute of plant Health ftIanaqement NIpHM Raiendranaoar Hyderabad Ryo Rat No 304 Shell paradise Apartnients plA g naave- d;rl;;;; Hyderabad 500050 ...APPELLANT AND

1. National lnstitute of Plant Health Management, rep by its Director General. Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500030 Z l-l.lig,l of lndia,. Dejartment_of Agriculture. Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of.AgJiculture and Farmers Welfare, Gbvernment of lndia rep by its Secretary to Government of lndia. New Delhi

3. Dr Edpuganti Sree Latha., Assistant Director (pHM) at NlpHM. 0/o National lnstitute of Plant Health Management, Rajendra Nalar Hyderabad SObbjO ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be.pleased to direct the Respondent-1 to appoint the petitioner in the resultant vacancy. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA counser for the Respondents No.1&2 , i#.""t?13,?t[t".irt#tL INDIA) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : SRI S.RAHUL REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABI]INAND KUMAR SHAYII-I AND rION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAP(I RAJESHVAR RAO WRIT APPEAI Nos.889 and 8 021 MON D MENT : llter Hot'h/, .\'i ltrrie lL/!ntut,l K,ta t) \:, tt.!/ ) Both the Vrit Appeals are being disposed o[ byway of this common order as the issue raised in thcsc rwo writ appeals is one and rhe same. 2 These rwo Writ Appeals are filed againsr the order, dated 28.08.2023 passed by the leamed Single Judge in \7.P.No.31494 of 2016.

3. W.ANo.898 of ZOZ3 is filed by the \Irit petitioner challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge only to the exrent of not giving a direction to consider the case of the 'Writ Petitioner for appointment ro the post of Assistant Director of Plant Health Management 'W.ANo.889 of 2023 is liled by (for short, 'PHM) and 2 AKS,J & RRN.J W.A \os.S89 3()S l02l respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition since his appointment was set aside bythe learned Single Judge'

4. Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant in \(.ANo.889 of 2023 and Sri Dr'Laxmi Narasimha, leamed counsel for the appellant in W.ANo'sgSofzozlandtheleamedDeputySolicitor General of lndia for the official rcspondents'

5. For the salre of convenience' the facts in V.ANo.898 of ZOZI are hereunder discussed' 6 It has been contended by the appellant that she is working as a Scientific Officer with the official respondents and she is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Assistant Director in PHM and official respondents have issued a notification to fill up the post of fusistant Director in PHM on January 2016 as the .) .\KS..r & RR\,1 \\ A.\o! SS() S()N l0ll appellant ancl respondent No.3 ful.ly eligible and qualilied to dre said notification, responded to thc said notification. Leamed counsel for the appellant has further contended that as per rhe said notification, rhe post of Assistant Director was to be filled up by uay of a selection based on the written test, pou,er point presentation and interview. The wrimen examination, power point presentation and interview were conducted on 1,6.06.2015 and the appellant was qualified in dre said selecdon. However, respondent No.3 was selected Assistant Director vide proceedings, dated 20.06.2016 and consequently, the official respondents have given appointment order to the respondent No.3

22.06.2016. I-eamed counsel for the appellant had further contended that the selection procedure adopted bythe official respondents is contraryto the notification. 4 AKS.J & RIIN.J \\ .\ \r,r.l(89 ll93 l{)2} fu per the notification, the sclcction criteria should have been made only on the basis of \Wnttcn Examination, Power point presentation and interview, instead, the official respondents have conducted the selecdon based upon the criteria such AS marls secured in M.Sc., examination and marks were also allored for Ph.D., degree and certain marks were awarded towards work accomplishment, exper-ience and also for possessing advance training, as the mles of game have been changed after issuing the notification. The appellant has challenged the same beforc this Court by filing the W.P.No.31494 of 201.6 and also challenged the appointment of respondent No.3.

7. karned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the entire selecdon process is contraryto the notification issued by the official respondents and ) .\(s,J & IUlN,l \\'A Nos llJ9 li9ll 2021 they have conducted the \)Triuen Examinati<>n for 80 marks and the same was scaled down the wdtten examination marls from 80 to 20 and the per{orrnance in power point presentation was conducted for 15 marls and interview marls were initially considered for 45 marks and later, it has been scaled down to 25 marls and some other criteria which has not set out in the notification were considered in the selection process and consequent upon such selection criteria, the respondent No.3 was appointed as fusistant Director, which IS contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Coun in various Judgments such I{.Maniusri Vs.State of Andhra Pradeshl, Hemani Malltotra Vs. Ifigh Court of DelhF, Mohd. Suhtab Khan Vs. Aligarh Muslim Universiqn, Bishnu Biswas & others 1 2008 3 SSC 5 12 t lzoot; z scc r r I 1zooo1+ scc sss AKS..t & t{RN.J Nos.ll(, i()S l02l Vs. [Jnion of India & otherd and Nitesh Kuntat \\ ^ 6 Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradeslti.

8. Leamed counself or the appellant had further contended that as selection procedure is based on cenain criteria and since the said criteria is not set out, the entire selection process ought to have been set aside and that the selection of respondent No.3 has also to be set-aside and only the criteria as set out in the notification such as wrrtten exarrunatron, Power point presentation and interview marls alone should be talren into account and based upon these three cr-iterias' as set out in the notification, the case of the appellant deserves to be considered for appointment to the post of fusistant Director in PFIIVI, but the leamed Single Judge has rightly set aside the appointment of respondent No.3, o (zotc) s scc ttc 5 1zozo1 + scc zo 7 AKS.J & ITIIN.J W. A. Nos.8li9 8()N 202:] respondent No.3 was selected based upon the criter-ia, which is not set out in the nodfication, which is conrrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Q>urt. Further, the learned Single Judge ought to have givcn a direction to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Director in PIIM based r-rpon the criteria as set out in the notificarion as adrrunedly, wriuen examination marls, power point presentation marks and interview marls of the appellant are available with the official respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the tVrit Appeals by directing the official respondents to consider the case of appellant for apporntment to the post of Assistant Director in PHM based upon the Vrinen examinarion, power point presentation and interview marks in the 8 AKS.J & IIIi\.I W.A \os tl'i9 ti9ii lltl j selecdons conducted on 16.06.2016 and allow the wr-it appeal to the limited erent. 9 Leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.3 had contended that the appellant has not challenged the selection procedure and the appellant has challenged only the selection of respondent No.3 and appourtment o[ respondent No.3. kamed couruel had further contended that the very same issue fell for consideration before the Flon'ble Supreme C-oun in Sil Sinivasa K Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka 6 wherein, there was a challenge to the appointment of conresring respondent in the case and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the or,den passed by the dismissal of the writ petirion, he has carried the mamer by filing the V'rit appeal and in the writ appeal, he has u {*o221 r ssc +o () ,q.KS,J & RIiN.J \V /\ Nos S39 ti98 2{,2-l challenged the selection procedure ancl the Division Bench has entenained the conrenrions nised by the writ appeal therein and set aside the appointment o[ conresring respondent and the conresting respondent has carried oLrt the mamer to the Flon'ble Supreme Clurt and Hon'ble Supreme Court was plexed ro ser aside the orders o[ the Division Bench on rhe ground that originally there was no challenge to the selection procedurc, as long as there is no challenge ro rhe selection procedure, the Division Bench was nor justified in sening aside the appointment of the appellant before the Flon'ble Supreme Courr. In those set of circumstances, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of Division Bench of Kamataka F[gh Coun and allowed rhe case of the appellant therein. In the instant case al"o, rhe appellant has not challenged the t0 AKS.J & RI{N.J w.A.Nos EIi9 1398 loll selection procedure as conducrcd by the official respondents and the appellant has only challenged selection and appointment of respondent No.3. In the absence of challenge to the selection procedure, the learred single Judge ought not to have set aside the appointment of respondent No.3. Admittedly from past seven )iears, the respondent No.3 is working as Assistant Director in PHM and the respondent No.3 has become age barred and the leamed Single Judge has set aside the entire selecdon process and directed the official respondents to issue a fresh notification and conduct selections afresh without appreciating the fact that the respondent No.3 was appointed after undergoing regular selection process.

10. kamed counsel for respondent No.3 has further contended that Selection Committee has adopted the G-* AKS,J & IIIiN,,I \\'.\ \os.lJ89 89S 2023 selection procedure as on the date of selection i.e, 1,6.06.2016 and the same was communicated to all the contesting candidates. Therefore, the selection Procedure adopted by the official respondents was communicated to all the contesting candidates even before the entire selection process has commenced and only after communicating the selection procedure, the selections were accordingly conducted in tune with the selection cntena prescribed by the Selection C-ommittee on

16.06.2023. Therefore, the entire selection process has been done in transparent and fair manner. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and the learned Single Judge was not iustified in sening aside the appointment of respondent No.3.

11. kamed counsel for respondent No.3 has further coffended that the leamed Single Judge has erroneously t2 AKS.t & IUt\..1 W A Nos 389 fl9ll loll come to a concluion that the Selection C-ommittee do not have thc power to evolve the scheme of selection as per Bp-law (9) of National Institute of Plant Health Management Services. Therefore, the Selection Committce was justified in prescribing the selection cdteria, and that too, the Selection Comminee has evolved the scheme of selection criteria well before the selection process has commenced. Therefore, appropnate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.31494 of 2016 dated 28.08.2023 ar-d allow the writ appeal preferred byrespondent No.3.

12. I-eamed Depury Solicitor General of India appearing for official responden$ has contended that the Selection Committee had power to frame selection criteria in terms of Bye-law 9 of Nadonal Institute of r I I l i i I N KS,J { IIRN.J \\ \.\,)s S89 J()\ l0t-l Plant Heahh Management Services and accorclingly, the Selection Comminee has taken a decision to fix the selection criteria as on the date of selection and rhe Selection Commimee has talren the decision to regulate the selection even before the selections were commenced. Therefore, the leamed Single Judge was nor justified in sening aside the appointment of respondent No.3.

13. kamed Depury Solicitor General ol lndia appearing for official respondents has further contended that when the appellant has challenged selection criteda, he cannot turn around and contend that the selections should be held valid and a direction to be given ro rhe official respondents to consider the case of the appellant based upon the selection criteria as ser out in the nodfication. 4r; l4 AKS.J & RRN.J W.A.Not llt9 898 2(l2 j

14. kamed counsel for the contesting respondent has further contended that the action of Selection Comminee in revising the selcction procedure may be contraryto the notification, but once the selection has already talen place, the quesdon of selection criteria which has been evolved bythe Selection Comminee calmot be taken into consideration and it is not possible to segregate the marks of written examination, power point presentation and interview from already calculated selection process. Therefore, the leamed Single Judge to some extent was justified in setting aside the entire selection process and directed the official respondents to conduct the selecdons afresh after issuing a fresh notification. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the \frit Appeal. l5 .\KS,J .R I{RN.J \\ \ \os ti89 li9S 2()2-l 15. This Court having considered the rival suhmissions made by the parties is of the considered view that u.'hen the selections have been taken contraryto the criteria, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the entire selection process and the argumcnts of the appellant in \X/.A.No.898 of 2023 cannot be accepted to calculate the selections based upon the wrinen examination, power point presentation and interview, because the entire selection process has been finalized by taking into certain other criteria also and at this point of time, it ruty not be feasible to segregate the marls secured in the examination which has been set out in the notification ie., wr-inen examination, power point presentatlon and rntervlew. .l

16. During the coune of arguments leamed counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.1 had contended x I6 \KS.I & RR\.I w A \(). \s9 89ti 201-1 that the pafties are age baned and they are not cligible to apply to dre post of Assistant Director il fu rs notified afresh. Therefore, this Crurt is of the considered view that the cases of the appellant and the respondent No.3 can be considered for selection by duly taking into account the fact that they have alreadyparticipated in the selection process which was conducted on 16.06.2016. Therefore, the official rcspondents shall permit the appellant as well as, the contesring respondents ro compete for selection and appointmenr to the post of Assistant Director in PHM. \We are also informed by the official respondents that the services of respondent No.3 already terminated in punuance of the orden passed by the leamed Single Judge on 31.08.2023 and the question of directing the official respondents ro conrinue the respondent No.3 also would not arte. L l1 AKS,] & I(ITN,J \\/.\ \,,s N89 t9X l0ll

17. rJflith these observations, rhis C_oun is nor inclined to inter{ere with the orders passed by the learacd Single Judge. Borh these appeals are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed /ITRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGA LAKSHIJ|I DEPUTY REGISTBAR ,n / sEcnoN o*/tcen To, Ct}- 2 lTheDrrectorGeneral,NationallnstituteofFlantHealthlvlanagement' Raiendranagar. Hyderabad rnl'- s..i"lriu to 6overnment of lndia New Delhi, Union of lndia, Department oi AqtL;liri"l Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Ministry of Agriculture and Farrn'ers Welfare. Government of lndia. One CC to SRI S.RAHUL REDDY' Advocate. [OPUC] On" CC to SRI DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, Advocate [OP,UC] on; aa i" sCi cnoi pRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputv Solicitor General of lndia), Hign Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ' [OPUC] Two CD Copies. K 3 4

6. BS BS I ! I i I I I ! . I HIGH COURT DATED:1210912023 ;i1il;. t .C lJ. ( 1E OITilM \- \ COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.889 & 898 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS \-=>