Kerala High Court
Rajan P vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WA NO. 36 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23667 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
RAJAN P,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. ANNAN P, PILAKANDY HOUSE, 10TH MILE, THARIODE POST,
POZHUTHANA VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 673 575., PIN - 673575
BY ADV AYSHA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
4TH FLOOR, KSCSTE SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
004., PIN - 695004
3 KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSITUTE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR 680 653., PIN -
680653
4 DR. R. SUGANTHASAKTHIVEL,
JUNIOR SCIENTIST (WILDLIFE BIOLOGY), KERALA FOREST RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR 680 653., PIN - 680653
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH SRI C K PRASAD SR ADV SRI NN SUGUNAPA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.05.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.2028/2023, 2186/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WA NO. 2028 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23667 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:
DR. R. SUGANTHASAKTHIVEL,
AGED 44 YEARS
JUNIOR SCIENTIST (WILDLIFE BIOLOGY), KERALA FOREST RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR - 680 653 S/O. M. RAMAMOORTHY
RESIDING AT MOLATH HOUSE, CHUVATTUPADAM, PANNIYANKARA P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683
BY ADVS.
S.SUJIN
NITA.N.S.
KEERTHI M.
T.N.GIRIJA
B.BILWIN
N.BHARAT
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RAJAN P,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. ANNAN P, PILAKANDY HOUSE, 10TH MILE, THARIODE POST,
POZHUTHANA VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673575
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
4TH FLOOR, KSCSTE SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695004
4 KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSITUTE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR 680 653., PIN -
680653
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.05.2024, ALONG WITH
WA.36/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WA NO. 2186 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23667 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NOS.2 &3:
1 KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, 4TH FLOOR, KSCSTE SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004., PIN - 695004
2 KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSITUTE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR 680
653., PIN - 680653
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT nOS.1 & 4:
1 RAJAN P,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. ANNAN P, PILAKANDY HOUSE, 10TH MILE, THARIODE
POST, POZHUTHANA VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 673 575., PIN -
673575
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001, PIN - 695001
3 DR. R. SUGANTHASAKTHIVEL,
JUNIOR SCIENTIST (WILDLIFE BIOLOGY), KERALA FOREST
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI P.O, THRISSUR 680 653., PIN
- 680653
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.05.2024,
ALONG WITH WA.36/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
4
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
This order shall dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 2028 and 2186 of
2023 and 36 of 2024 arising out of the judgment rendered in WP(C)
No.23667 of 2022.
2. Petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant in W.A No.36 of
2024 whereas 4th respondent is the appellant in WA No.2028 of 2023
and 2nd and 3rd respondents are appellants in WA No.2186 of 2023.
3. Appeal No.2186 of 2023 has been preferred only to the limited
extent of challenging the imposition of cost by the Single Judge on the
petitioner for driving the writ petitioner to litigation contesting the
appointment of respondent No.4 in the writ petition and the appellant
in WA No.2028 of 2023, Dr.R Suganthasakthivel.
4. By virtue of order of the Single Bench, respondent No.2 has
already implemented the order by removing the appellant in WA
No.2028 of 2023 - 4th respondent in the other petitions. Appellant in
W.A No.36 of 2024 has challenged the order of the Single Bench only on
two grounds; imposition of cost and on non consideration of his
candidature for selection to the post in question.
5. The facts for adjudication of the lis in brief are as under:
Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment,
Respondent No.2 in the writ petition is an institution conducting
research in Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation. Kerala
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
Forest Research Institute (KFRI),Respondent No.3 for the purpose of
conducting the aforementioned research, invited application to the post
of Scientists in various disciplines vide notification dated 14.8.2018.
The said notification envisages the reservation by caste which
disentitled various candidates from applying, resulting in a litigation in
this Court vide W.P(C) No.33574 of 2018. Learned Single Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 allowed the writ petition with a
direction to re-notify, in accordance with law.
6. In terms of the judgment, ibid, respondent No.3, KFRI,
appellant in W.A No.2186 of 2023 caused a notification dated 3.7.2019,
Ext.P3 inviting application for recruitment to the post of various
Scientists. The post involved in this case is with regard to Code
No.12/18, Junior Scientist/Scientist B-Wildlife Biology. Various
applications were submitted and a total of ten (10) candidates were
shortlisted, of which only five (5) appeared for the interview. The
aforementioned advertisement contained certain clauses regarding the
age relaxation, short listing of the candidates for interview by the
screening committee and the decision by the selection committee of
KFRI. Petitioner and Respondent No.4 being eligible, appeared before
the selection committee. Petitioner, Rajan was awarded 15.63 marks
whereas appellant in W.A No.2028 of 2023, 4 th respondent in the writ
petition was awarded 13.5 marks. However the 4 th respondent,
Dr.Suganthasakthivel was selected to the post on the premise that
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
KFRI had reserved the aforementioned post for OBC category. In
another words, as per the roster, the vacancy had fallen vacant under
the OBC category.
7. Appellant in W.A No.36 of 2024 alleged that the procedure
followed by the screening committee and selection committee is totally
unknown to the judicial principles and settled laws, for, neither any
notification nor rules envisage that the screening committee is
empowered to give marks. Role of the screening committee was only to
scrutinize the applications and forward to the selection committee. By
looking at the marks, petitioner had stood at Rank No.1 whereas the 4 th
respondent was much far behind. Annexure R3(1) reveals that the
screening committee had step down the marks given to the candidates
who were not to be selected in and stepped up to formalities like
respondent No.4.
8. Respondent No.3 contested the aforementioned claim and stated
that the application submitted by 4 th respondent ie., the appellant in
W.A No.2028 of 2023 was considered under OBC category as he
belonged to Vadakkancherry Panchayath, Palakkad District and
therefore, was granted age relaxation as per the particular clause
contained in the notification whereas on the other hand, Respondent
No.4 in the counter alleged that he had submitted the application under
OBC category as he belonged to Hindu Maravar in Karnataka state.
9. Learned Single Judge on examination of the rival contentions
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
and pleadings found that 4th respondent had taken inconsistent stand in
as much as that though his application reveals that he had applied
under the OBC category in the absence of any reservation in the
notification, if found suitable, could have been given age relaxation
being a more meritorious candidate. But the alleged recommendations
of the screening committee and the order of the Director was
conspicuously wanting. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
in part by awarding cost to the writ petitioner. As far as the claim for
appointment / selection of the petitioner, it was declined by rendering
the finding in paragraph No.22 which reads thus:
22. Now, the question is as regards the relief that can be granted to
the petitioner in the instant case. In addition to requesting the
nullification of the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent,
the petitioner has also sought for a direction ordering the 3rd
respondent to appoint him to the position of Scientist B - Wildlife
Biology. However, the fact remains that the appointment for this
position is specifically reserved for a candidate from the OBC category.
Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted based
on this ground. It is evident from the facts presented that respondents
2 and 3 have indeed selected and appointed the 4th respondent in a
manner that appears to be in direct contravention of the notification
and the settled legal principles. At any rate, while granting age
relaxation, the respondents could not have ignored the principles laid
down in Nicky (supra) in which the KFRI was a party. The petitioner
has placed on record Exhibit P9, a letter issued by a person occupying
a high political position in the state of Tamil Nadu to his counterpart in
the State of Kerala. This letter is highlighted by the petitioner to
substantiate that the Rules and Regulations were stretched to favor the
4th respondent. Given the sequence of events, it is clear that the
petitioner had a legitimate cause to bring this matter to the attention
of this Court. The petitioner has clearly highlighted the apparent
efforts made by respondents 2 and 3 to select and accommodate the
4th respondent, which raises questions about the fairness and legality
of the selection process. If the respondents had acted fairly and in
consonance to the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this
Court, the petitioner herein would not have been drawn to a litigation
of this nature. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
petitioner is liable to be compensated for the manner in which the
respondents have acted, which course could easily have been avoided if
the respondents had acted fairly and reasonably. In view of the
discussion above, this Writ Petition is ordered, and the following
directions are issued. a. The selection and appointment of the 4th
respondent to the post of Junior Scientist / Scientist B in Wildlife
Biology by granting age relaxation and by including him in the turn of
OBC category in the State of Kerala is illegal, and the same is quashed.
b. I decline the prayer of the petitioner to appoint him to the post of
Scientist B- Wild Life Biology. c. Towards compensation to the
petitioner and for driving him to litigation, respondents 2 and 3 are
directed to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- to the petitioner, which shall be
paid within a period of one month from today.
10. Aggrieved of the same as noticed above, three appeals have
been filed. Adv. Yeshwant Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant-
writ petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to
notice the marks awarded by the selection committee as well as the
screening committee which as per the notification was not empowered
to do so. On close scrutiny of the aforementioned marks, it is evident
that undue favoritism has been done to 4 th respondent. Though another
candidate at Sl.No.5, namely Dr.Ashokkumar had also obtained higher
marks by the selection committee but concededly was over aged and
has not been considered for appointment. Petitioner was the only
eligible candidate for the appointment to the post of Scientist B.
Moreover the cost imposed is too meager and liable to be increased.
11. Learned Senior counsel, N.N Sugunapalan, assisted by Adv.
S.Sujin, counsel representing the 4th respondent in the writ petition and
the appellant in W.A No.2028 of 2023 challenged the judgment of the
Single Bench on the ground that reservations in appointment was
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
introduced in 2021. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the
department rightly considered the 4 th respondent eligible, in view of the
fact that the said candidate obtained highest marks. The action of the
respondent No.3 in implementing the judgment of the Single Bench is
wholly vitiated and uncalled for and could have been acted for, the
limitation period of thirty days enabling the appellant to approach this
court to seek interim stay. If at all, in the alternative, it was submitted
that in case the court finds that the candidature of the 4 th respondent
was liable to be rejected as the OBC category of Hindu Maravar was not
recognized as OBC in the State of Kerala, had been granted age
relaxation as per clause No.5 of the Notification, Ext.P3, for, the 4 th
respondent is more meritorious than all other candidates.
12. Adv. C.K Prasad, counsel for the respondent No.3 and Adv. E.S
Ashraf, counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that though they
have challenged the judgment in its entirety, the judgment of the Single
Bench but confines their arguments only regarding the imposition of
cost. The cost should not have been imposed for, it was not a case of
judicial impropriety and irregularity as no legal injury was caused to the
petitioner.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
For adjudication of the controversy and the lis, it would be axiomatic to
look at clauses 1, 3 and 5 of the notification Ext.P3.
1. Age: 35 years on the closing date of application of original
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
notification viz. 19/09/2018. Age limit may be relaxed in the case of
internal candidates and candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC as per
the Government Rules.
3. Merely fulfilling of essential educational qualifications and for
experience does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. A
duly constituted Screening Committee shall lay down the criteria to
short list the candidates for interview. The decision of KFRI Shall be
final.
5. In the case of exceptionally meritorious candidates, relaxation in
the requirements may apply, subject to the approval from the
Executive Vice President of the Kerala State Council for Science
Technology and Environment, on the recommendation from the
Director KFRI. The Director KFRI reserves the right to fill or not to
fill any or all of the above posts.
14. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the candidates should
have been below 35 years of age on the closing date of the application
of original notification dated 19.9.2018 which could be relaxed in case
candidates belongs to SC/ST/OBC, as per the Government Rules. There
is no quarrel that the Hindu Maravar category is recognized as OBC in
the State of Karnataka, but not in the State of Kerala.
15. The 4th respondent had applied under the OBC category for
selection of Scientists. The contents of the application had already
been extracted in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. However on
going through the stand taken in the counter as well as the
memorandum of appeal, it is evident that dichotomous approach has
been taken. In other words, an inconsistent and contradictory plea have
been taken by relaying upon the clauses 1 and 5. No doubt, clause 5
grants age relaxation to a meritorious candidate but subject to
compliance of certain conditions ie., recommendation of the screening
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
committee and an order by the Director. Repeatedly, this Court had
questioned the respondents as per the argument of Sri.Yeshwant
Shenoy, to place on record such recommendations and order but the
said compliance has not seen the light of the day. We draw our
reiteration from the findings rendered in paragraph No.13.
13. A reading of the counter would disclose that the petitioner seeks
age exemption on the ground that he belongs to the OBC community.
However, in the same breath, he states that the respondents could
have granted him age relaxation, taking note of his outstanding
academic qualifications. At any rate, even for a person who falls in the
category of OBC, the age relaxation would be three years. I have
already extracted clause (5) of Ext.P3 notification, which states that in
the case of exceptionally meritorious candidates, relaxation in the
requirements may apply, subject to the approval from the Executive
Vice President of the Kerala State Council for Science Technology and
Environment, on the recommendation from the Director KFRI. There
is no case for any of the respondents that such a course was followed.
16. There is no challenge to the aforementioned findings.
Admittedly, the age of the 4th respondent at the time of submission of
the application was 38 years, 10 months and 19 days old on September
19, 2018. When the stand of the 4 th respondent, viz-a-viz 3rd respondent
had also been in tandem for the reason that the respondent No.3 has
come out with the plea that 4 th respondent belongs to OBC category at
Vadakkancherry Panchayat area in the State of Kerala. However, no
such reservation as evident from the application, was claimed, nor the
department could apply the reservation in appointment provided in the
Rules promulgated in 2021 as the notification was of prior thereto. It is
settled law that any amendment brought in the Rules subsequent to the
notification would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. Thus the
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
contention of the counsel for the 3 rd respondent does not merit
acceptance and hereby rejected. A faint attempt was made on behalf of
the 4th respondent to consider his candidature as the general candidate.
17. The findings of the Single Bench in paragraph 13 extracted
above has not been rebutted by any additional documents before us as
we categorically asked the counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3
and 4 to show the recommendation of the screening committee as well
as the order of the Director. Our attention was drawn to R3(b) dated
15.7.2021 and we do not find any such recommendation by the
screening committee. There was no recommendation of the screening
committee much less the occasion for recommendation of the Director
arise.
18. On the contrary, the stand of the respondent had been totally
opposite to what has been argued and disclosed during the course of the
argument. For the sake of brevity, we deem it appropriate to extract
paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent.
13. It is submitted that gong by the Rules, age relaxation can be
granted in favour of candidates. Referring to the relaxation of age,
both the petitioner and the 4th respondent was granted the age
relaxation based on the recommendation of the Research Council by
the-KSCSTE. The age relaxation was granted since both were
applicants to the post based on the earlier notification. The Rules
enables grant of age relaxation and that the earlier selection was set
aside solely on technical reasons. Hence the Research Council
recommended the age relaxation which the petitioner also enjoyed,
and he cannot raise a grievance that the age relaxation is granted to
the 4th respondent is illegal.
19. It is evident that the consistent stand of the official respondent
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
had been for extending the age relaxation on the recommendation off
the screening committee. The said pleadings are totally of the records.
It is on that ground the learned Single Bench imposed the cost of
Rs.25000/- to be shared by both official respondents.
20. For the reason aforementioned, we thus do not find any
illegality and perversity in the findings of the learned Single Bench in
allowing the writ petition viz-a-viz the claim of the petitioner qua
disqualification of the 4th respondent and imposition of cost.
21. Coming to the argument of Mr.Yeshwant Shenoy with regard
to non consideration of candidature of the petitioner be a fit and
qualified candidate for appointment of Scientist. On perusal of the
findings rendered by the learned Single Bench in paragraph 22
extracted above, reasoning assigned is that the post advertised by the
3rd respondent was reserved for OBC. Once the learned Single Judge
found that the 4th respondent could not have been selected on the
ground that he did not belong to the OBC category much less the Hindu
Maravar was not considered to be OBC category in the State of Kerala
for rejection, petitioner in writ cannot be rejected in the said fashion. In
principle, it found that the official respondent had not been able to place
on record any material showing that the roster point meant for OBC was
required to be filled in purported compliance of the notification, Ext.P3.
For considering the eligibility of the petitioner, we would be remiss in
not extracting the result of the interview held on 1.4.2022 for Scientist
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
B in the subject Scientist B-Wildlife Biology.
KSCSTE - Kerala Forest Research Institute
KFRI Scientist interview held on 1.4.2022 for Scientist B in the Subject area : SC 12 Wildlife
Biology
No Name of Chairma Member Dr.Anith Dr.Pram Dr.Mewa Dr.Ajay Dr.AJTT Dr.Sathy Dr.R Average Score Aggregat
Candidates n (out of Conveno a(out of od P (out Singh Gaur(out Johnsing akumar(o Sukumar (out of from e (out of
20) r (out of 20) of 20) (out of of 20) h(out of ut of 20) (out of 20) screenin 100)
20) 20) 20) 20) g(out of C=A+B
80)
1 Dr.R 11 10 16 11 12.2 13 16 15 13.5 13.08 34.67 47.75
Suganthasakt
hivel
2 Dr.Joseph J absent
3 Dr.Anil K 8 10 15 6 12 10 12 12 11 10.61 24.85 35.51
4 Dr.Ramesh 9 16 14 10 11.5 12 15.5 13 11.5 12.56 17.91 30.41
kumarS
5 Dr.Ashokkum 18 19.5 17 16 13.8 18 17.5 19 18 16.87 17.52 34.38
ar M
6 Dr.Suresh K absent
Govind
7 Dr.Pritha Dey absent
8 Dr.Bharat absent
Bushan
Sharma
9 Dr.Ahmad absent
Masood Khan
10 Dr.Rajan P 16 19.25 17 16 12.4 15 14 18 13 15.63 12.42 28.05
Chairman Member Convenor Member Subject Experts
sd/- sd/ - sd/- sd/-
22. On perusal of the consolidated mark sheet, compared with the
terms and conditions of the notification, Ext.P3, it is evident that
screening committee has not been empowered to grant any marks to
individual candidates. Their role was only to scrutinize the applications
as to whether they fulfill the eligibility criteria and to forward the same
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
to the selection committee. Intriguingly, the screening committee in
two cases ie., in the case of the 4 th respondent as well as Dr. Anil had
jacked up their marks by giving highest marks ie., 34.67 and 24.85 viz-z-
viz the petitioner by awarding only 12.42. Since there is no provision in
the notification or Rules much less any justification given in the counter
affidavit justifying that the screening committee was empowered to
award the marks, left no other option but to exclude the marks given by
the screening committee. By excluding the marks given by the
screening committee, 4th respondent was thus granted 13.08 by the
selection committee viz-a-viz petitioner who was awarded 15.63. As
far as the candidate at Sl. No.5 who was awarded more marks than the
petitioner ie., 18.0 by the selection committee was overage and
therefore was not considered for age relaxation whereas the other
candidates had scored less. For the sake of repetition, no plausible
explanation has come forth as to how and in what manner, the
screening committee had awarded the marks, for, all the candidates
were found suitable on scrutiny of the application enabling them to
appear before the interview/selection committee.
23. We would not have undertaken the exercise of examining the
marks given to the candidates but the fact remains the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 had been hand in glove in giving undue weightage and
favour to the 4th respondent to protect his appointment from all ends. It
was not appreciated by the Single Bench, resulted into imposition of
WA NO. 36 OF 2024 and conctd. Cases
cost. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition in toto and sustain the
compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge and modify the
order of the Single Bench by ordering that since the petitioner has
secured the highest marks, he is entitled for selection/appointment as
Scientist B. 3rd respondent is directed to issue an appointment letter
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
W.A No.36 of 2024 is allowed. W.A Nos. 2028 and 2186 of 2023
are dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
