The High Court · 2025

Ne-elam^Lavanyg^a^9e9 48 years D/o Sri N Kumara Swamy Occ Scientific officer BP and tr4c 0/o Nationar Institute of prant Heat h Man,ige;;riiiipHr; _Eet^ lt-o 304 Shelt pa r adise,\i;.fi;;i;' iiR Rajendran agar Hyderabad R/o Enclave G angaram Hyderabad 500050 AND 1 National lr stitute of Plant Health Mana Rajendra Nlaga- Hyderabad 500030 gement, rep b y its Director General ...APPFLLANT 2 Union of lr dia , Department of Agriculture, cooperation and Filrmers welfare. Ivtinistry of Aqri:utture and Farmiers Welfare, 6;;;;;;nt ,;f i;i;'r";i;ii. Secretary t r Government of lndia. ttew Oeii,i' Dr Edpugarti Sr99 lgtlq, Assistant Director (pHM) al NlpHIvl.0/o Nationat rnstitute crf )tan1 Hearth lvanagement, Rajendri N;;;;ryd;r;iirotoriolti"'' a ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 20 23 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondent-'1 to appoint the petitioner in the resultant vacancy. IA NO: 10 F 2025 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 ta treat the additional affidavitl additional material P?Pers as p4rt and parcel of the main Writ APPeal' Counsel for the Appellant: SRI Dr. K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA 6ounsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAB, Dy. SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY The Csurt delivered the following: QOMMON JUDGMENT THEHoNoITRABLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUST]:CESIJJoYPAUL AND THE IIIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos. 889and 898 of2023 COMMON ..IIIDQI[EX!1 Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief }usttce) These lntr-rl-Court appeals are directed agrrinst 'rrder dated 2a.oa.2o23lassiedinW.P.No.31494of2016.W.A.Nos.898and BB9 of 2023 have been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent .'No'3 respect Lvell' 6ha11s'ging the findings that wer-rt a5;ainst them in the impul;necl order. For the sake of conven ence' the parties are hereinafi.er ;-eferred to as they were arraye(l befo re the Writ Court.

2. The pa.ties; have fought a long drawn battlr: in tl-te corridors of the court till :he supreme court. There is a cheque:red history of litigation, vhr<:h ca1 be briefly stated as under: Facts:

3. On 21.0112016, issued inviting caldidd (P1ant Healtl r 1\{ anage Health Man:egement Laws'), lays dou'n the. treated as re:ruitment ent Notification No. 1 /2016 was the post of Ar;sistalt Director 9 National Ins'titute for Plant ce Bye-Litws, 2OO8 (tsye tions and tlte sanne can be aforesaid post. The last date 1 \ E. 2 ':ti:. HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 &. 898 2023 'I 'lt for submission of applications was 31'05'2016' On 76'06'2016' written test was conducted for the said post and on the same day, the Selection Committee convened a meeting and conducted interviews and power point presentation for the candidates' On 23.06.2016, Dr. Edpuganti Sree Latha/respondent No'3 in the Writ Petition was selected and appointed by the Department' Aggrieved by the said appointment, Mrs' Neelam Lavanyaf writ petitioner filed O.A.No.721 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 31'08'2016 for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, she Iiled W'P'No'31494 of 2016beforethisCourtartdonlT.l,0.2016,thisCourtgranted interim suspension on appointment of respondent No'3' On 2S.os,2o23,thesaidWritPetitionwasdecidedbythelearned Single Judge by setting aside the selection process and the appointment of respondent No'3' The learned Single Judge instead of directing to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner has ordered for issuance of noti{ication afresh as per relevalt criteria'

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent No'3' These Writ {pp"d. were decided by common judgment of this Court dated J H,\( ]J (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 &. 898 2023

12.O9.2O2a\. Aglyieved by the said common judgrnent, respondent No.3 filed (rivii Appea-l No.13521 of 2024 bef<rre the Supreme Court, whict rvas decided on 21.11.2024. The Srrpreme Court set aside the cornmon judgment dated 12.09.2023 a-tcl, rernitted back the matter tr, th.is Court for fresh adjudication of :he Writ Appeals. Thus, these 'Mrit Appeals are now listed for hearir g. €ontention of the writ petitioner/appellant irr IV.A.No.898 of 2o23:. .t-. -

5. Dr. 1.. Lahshmi Narasimha, Iearned cour sel f<.rr the writ petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.B98 of 2023 subrnits th,at the Bye- Laws are sile nt zLbout criteria for selection. The said cr.iteria were accordingly . aid down in advertisement Notification },lo. I 12016. The advertis( me11t provides 'procedure for selection, and makes it clear that sel:cti'n to the post in question will be based on written test, power poinL presentation ald interview. ,l'hus. the marks have been grven to the candidates only under ._hese heads. By placing relii rtce on the marks prepared l,\, tfue ofhcia_l respondents, it irs urged that if these three headr are taken into account, the r.,*,ri! petitioner secured 7g.05 a,d r.esporLdent No.3 secured only 23.7'5 marks. \ I 4 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 --.,i ',l.,

6. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the Selection Committee without there being any jurisdiction and authority, arbitrarily modiherl selection criteria by adding weightage to (i) M.Sc'/Ph'D' qualihcation' (ii) publications' recogrrition and additiona-l experience ald (iii) additional training programmes. This modification by the Selection Committee amounts to change of rules of game in the midst of the game' Reliance is placed on the recent constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v' Rajasthan High Courtl. 7 By placing reliance on the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the entire order is in favour of the writ petitioner except paragraph No.12 (3), where the learned Single Judge directed for issuance of fresh advertisement' whereas the learned Single Judge ought to have directed for consideration of candidates on the basis of criteria mentioned in advertisement Notification No.1/2016, dated 21'01'2O16' Thus' the said paragraph of the judgment is liable to be set aside and modified to the said extent. ' 2024 SCC online SC 3lE4 5 HACI (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 contention of res ondent No.3 2o23. a llant in W.A.No.889 of

8. Sri S. ReLhul Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3/appellant in W.A.No.889 of 2023 submits that respondent No.3 is wor <ing since 2016. The writ petitic,ner u,as earlier selected for t ec prost of Scientific Officer and for the sai<l selection, the then Sele ction Committee applied the same criteria which was applied for the post of Assistant Director (PHM ). Alter having participatecl in 1.he previous selection for the p ost o I Scientific Officer, it is nor correct on the part of the writ petitioner to say that she was not aware about the criteria of selection.

9. The ne.rt srrbmission is based on the judgnrent cf Supreme Court in the :ase: of Srinivas K. Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences2, wherein it was held that if selecr-ion is not called in quertion, the appointment cannot be int:rfererl with. By taking this ( lourt to the procedure of Selection Com mittee, Sri Rahul Reddy strenuously contended that the Selection Committee adopted its 20 L 3 procedure which was knorvn to the writ petitioner. i'he Bye-Laws permitted the Selectic n Corrmittee to adopt arry rniformly applicable criteria/procedure. All the ' 1zozz1 t scc to \ \ I ,i 6 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 . candidates were dealt on such uniform criteria. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not put to any step motherly treatment or discrimination. Since all the candidates were treated equally and they were subjected to same set of criteria for the selection, no fault can be found in the selection procedure.

10. Furthermore, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for , respondent No.3, submits that from the day of selection itself all the candidates concerned were orally informed by the Department about the criteria to be adopted by the Selection Committee. In the previous round of hearing of these Writ Appeals (before remand from the Supreme Court), the learned colrnsel appearing for the Department accepted the same. By taking this Court to the scheme of marks, Sri Rahul Reddy submits that in the head of written examination conducted on 16.06.2016, the marks were given out of 8O marks. However, the marks were rearranged while preparing consolidated marks awarded for written test, power point presentation and interview while inserting the weightage of M.Sc./Ph.D., written examination, advanced training, paper -==publication etc,. The corresponding modilication of marks of 7 I IACJ ( SP,J) & RY,J \iA 889 k 898 2023 written exam ina tion has not caused any pre judict" to any candidate. contention o f--re@ent: 1 1. Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor (]eneral of India, for resprondent Nos. I and 2 in the writ Petiti ln suirmits that Clause9ol.-heByeLawspermitstheSelectiorrConrmitteeto select the carrclidates for various posts. Thus, tro far.Llt can be found in the z ction of the selection committee in pr-eparir-rg its own criteria r.r,hic h 'd'ras made applicable uniforrr 11' to all the candidates. In cbedience of the order of the Oourt, the "Vrit Department rray proceed to issue fresh advertisement' Reioinder suhmissions:

12. In rejoirLder submissions, learned counsel fcr u'rit petitioner by placing rr :liarLce on the judgment of the Suoreme Court in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly3, subrr,itted that the parties ,vhil,: aPProaching the Court for grant r.rf relief is solemnly ob igecl to candidly disclose all tht: ma1-erial and important far:ts which have bearing on the adjrrclication of the ' (20 ro) 4 scc 728 \ \ 1f..:-*arna: I 8 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 issues raised in the case. In the instant case, before the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.13521 of 2024, respondent No.3 took a specific stand that on 16.06.2O 16, the Selection Committee informed orally about guidelines adopted by the Committee, but the Department while hling its counter before the Supreme Court denied and refuted it. Thus, respondent No.3 has not approached the Court with clean hands. The next reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in parimal Kumar v. State of Jharkhanda, to submit that aJter having seen the criteria for appointment in the advertisement, the riryit petitioner has legitimately expected that her selection will be under the same criteria.

13. The parties have confined their contentions to the extent indicated above

14. We have heard the parties at length and penised the record. Findings:-

15. Before dealing with rivat contentions, it is apposite to refer to certain relevant clauses from the Bye Laws and advertisement. Clause 9 of the Bye Laws reads thus: 12025 scc online sc 210 9 HACJ ('JP,J) & RY,J \rv A 889 & 898 2023 "9 Selectio r of Candidates for Recruitment to Varic us Posits: (i) Sele,:t on of Candidates to various posts shall be ma'le bv belecti,rr (l,rmmittee to be constituted by respcctive appointi rg zr,rthorities for the purpose from time tci tirn':'"

16. The 'Pro< ed.rrre for Selection' in relation to post in qtrestion is defined in the edvertisement as under: .t]. PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION

1. Assistant Dir<:ctor (PHM): Selection to the Post tvill be based on written test, power point preseatation and inl:erview'" (EmPhe sis SuPPlied)

17. A careltl reading of Bye Laws and in particular Clause 9 shows that it ;nly talks about constitution of Selection c:ommittee which will unr lert-ake the exercise of selection. Hovrever, no clause could be bror r€lh t to our notice by the learned rlounsr3l for the parties, whict cle als u'ith criteria/method of selection' Thus, on this aspect I31 e LzLlvs are of no assistance'

18. The adr erti:;ement dea-ls with procedure for selection and makes it cler r dlat selection will be based on (i) u'r itten test, (ii) pou,er poir t presentation and (iii) interview.

19. This is '.r1te that if there is inconsistency between the Rule, 1d\()rtisement, Rule will prevail. Ilowev:r, in the Bye Law or \ \ r t, l0 I HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 peculia-r facts of this case, as noticed above, the Bye Laws are silent about the criteria of selection. The advertisement Notification No. 1 /2016 makes it procedure / criteria for selection, hence, adding of new contrary to the recent criteria/weightage certainly clear about the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), relevant portion of which reads as under: "65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms

65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with hlling up of vacancies;

65.2. Elieibilitv criteria for beins placed in the select list, notifred at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be chaneed midwav throush the recruitment t. or the process unless the extant Rules so permi advertisement which is not contra rv to the extant Rules so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisff the test of non-arbitrariness;

65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lK. Manjusree v. Stote of A.P, (2oo8) 3 SCC 512: (2008) l SCC (L&S) 8411 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chonder Manaaha [State of Haryanav. Subash Chand"er Mortaaha, (19741 3 SCC 22O : 1973 SCC (L&S) 4881 . Subash Chnnder Marutaho lState of Haryanav. Subash Chander Monttaha, (197 4\ 3 SCC 22O : 1973 SCC (L&S) 4881 deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree lK. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2OO8) 3 SCC 512 : (2OO8) 1 SCC (L&S) 8411 deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; /--' l1 I{AC.I (]P,J) & RY,J \\A 889 & 898 2023

65.4. Re:ruil-tng bodies, subject to the extant Rrrles, nLay devise appropriate procedure for bringing the ret:ruitmt:nt process to ts logical end provided the proc:dure so adopted tsi transparent, non-discriminal ory/ non- arbiiraq eLrrl has a rational nexus to the object lought to be ach re red;

65.5. Flxtant Rules having statutory force are b nding on the recr uiting body both in terms of procerlure t"nd eligibilit,. firtwever. where the rules are non existent' or silEnt. a lmjlristrative instructions mav hll in the qaps;'' (EmPhasis SuPPlied)

20. ths sivr:rtisement does not have any statut()ry force, but it can be equate d et1- least with an executive instruction' [n view of above judgme nt, this criteria laid down in the advertisement is binding and r;hifting or inserting of new criteria in the midst of selection amo rntsi to change in the rule of game in midw ay' Thus, we are unabl,: to countenance the stand taken before us by the Department and unofficial respondent i.e., respondent Nrr.3.

21. Learned Single Judge rightly opined that there is rto express or implied enlbling provision with the Department whic'h enables the Selection Ccrnmittee to adopt and introduce its ol',rr criteria and take a sh ift irom a criteria prescribed in the ac[vertisement.

22. So far, thr: argument of Sri S. Rahul Redc$ that the writ petitioner w'a; selected in the year 2011 for the lrost ol' Scientifrc \ t l:l*.,ilalH, Fr- I t2 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & E98 Z0Z3 : :t Officer, wherein the method of selection was salne and therefore, she cannot plead ignorance about the method of selection is concerned, we a-re only inclined to observe that we do not frnd any merit in this contention. The selection in the post of Scientific Officer was altogether independent ald separate selection. In the selection in question, an independent advertisement i.e., advertisement Notihcation No. 1 / 20 16 was issued, which is pregnant with a clause which deals with the 'procedure for selection'. After having prescribed the procedure of selection, in the absence of any enabling provision existing as on the last date of submission of candidature, it was not open to the Selection Committee to adopt a different criteria.

23. The another argument of Sri S' Rahul Reddy which was strenuously advanced is that on the date of selection itself, the Selection Committee informed all the candidates about the new heads on which they will be assessed. Thus, there was a uniform criteria which was made applicable to all the candidates. We are not impressed with this argument for the simple reason that even assuming this to be correct that Selecijon Committee informed on the date of selection about change of criteria, the criteria stood \ l3 HAL'J (SP,J) & RY,J 'i/A 88!) & 898 2023 charged midr ray after selection process commencr'd froro the date of issualce ,rl th,: advertisement

24. Apart lrrm '-his, curiously, the pleadings shcu-n to us which were taken Ly rt:spondent No.3 before the Supreme (lourt and relevant para,yaph of counter of Government shows that both of them have ta <en a diametrically opposite stand on the factum of giving any srrr:h information to the candidates. Thr: Deptrrtment in clear terms s tate d that no such information w:rs given to the candidates. 'Ihus, this argument cannot cut any ice

25. The rec, rrd of Selection Committee shows that initially, the marks of writ ter-r examination were given from total marks of 80. The writ petit ion.er secured 50 marks, whereas r:sponlent No.3 secured 4O rr arl<s. Later on, the Selection Comtlittee prepared consolidated marks for written test, power poir.t presentation, interview and a<l,1ed marks on the head of M.S:., Ph.D., work accomplishmr nt, experience, advance training arrd paper publication. Ihus, the total marks given on the heacl of written examination ver€r reduced from 80 to 20. Because of a new methodolos/ and criteria adopted by the Select.ion Oommittee which runs co ntrary to the criteria pres<:ribed in the \ \ -, ", ..'..]iit,':.'i.' ] l4 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wA 889 & 898 2023 advertisement, the difference of marks in written examination between respondent No.3 and the writ petitioner was only 2.50 marks. Whereas when marks in the written examination only were given, the writ petitioner secured 1O more marks than respondent No.3

26. In view of Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash l Pathak (supra), we are inclined to hold that this methodolory adopted by fhe Department is impermissible whereby they tested the candidates on the basis of certain criteria which was not prescribed in the advertisement.

27. Learned Single Judge, in our judgment, was justified in giving findings of this nature, but committed arr error on the operative portion of the impugned order whereby direction was given to issue new comprehensive notification for the post of Assistant Director (PHM) containing all nonns for selection and accordingly select the candidates. 2a- In our considered opinion, if the selection was found to be erroneous and Selection Committee considered new criteria which was not prescribed in the advertisement and accordingly gave l5 HA('J (SP,J) & RY,J \vA 889 & 898 2023 marks on thc se heads, the proper course would be to set aside those Iindings of ,-he Selection Committee ald isstLe a drrection to the Selection Cornmittee to take into account on ly thc,se marks which are rrising out of the criteria laid rlou'n in the advertisemenr . 1'hus, Selection Committee, in tlLe instant case, needs to take into account the marks obtained by the candidates in the head o. written examination, power point presenl-ation and interview. t]rr the basis of these marks already secured by the candidates ar rd, after deleting the marks given :n other heads which were n rt ir the advertisement, a new select list n:eds to be redrawn ald mo st meritorious candidates needs to . b e selected and appointe 1. To this extent, the impugned c rder of learned Single Judge lese n es interference arrd modificatio lr. 29 . Paragra rh lVo. 1 2 (3) of impugned order of learrred Single Judge stoocl modified accordingly. Merely because r,:spondent No.3 worked lor rluite some time, no right or equitv is created in her favour bt ,car: se writ petitioner was diligently ald ,:onstantly contesting Ib - he r rights. Thus, on the grouncl of equity, the appointment rf respondent No.3 cannot be saved. , t 16 HACJ (SP,J) & RY.J wA 889 &. 898 2023

30. As a result, the order of learned Single Judge is partly confirmed and interference is made only in respect of paragraph No. 12(3) of impugned order to the extent indicated hereinabove. Resultantly, W.A.No.898 of 2023 filed by Mrs.Neelam Lavanya is allowed to the extent indicated above and W.A.No.a89 of 2023 frled by Dr.E.Sree Latha is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary to Government of lndia, Department of Agriculture. Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Government of lndia, New Delhi, Union of lndia.

2. The Director General, National lnstitute of Plant Health Management, Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500030 3 One CC to SRI S RAHUL REDDY, Advocate [OPUQ] 4. One CC to SRI Dr. K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderahad [OPUC]

6. Two CD Copies BSR BS 6 HIGH COt,RT DATED: 09t04tZO2S Cowtwlotrr ,JuDGMENT WA.Nos.889 and g98 of 2023 I o o v -.4z4'. --,, 1J\. : 5 l',1 ,.s: 16 lPri 2[25 k O€ ':'t z a .b ,+ t PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE W.A.No.898 of 2OZ3 & DISMISS|NCi THE W.A.No.88 9 of 2023, WITHOUT COSTS @q'u t6 1(