Neelam Lavanya vs National Institute Of Plant Health ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4673 Tel

Telangana High Court

Neelam Lavanya vs National Institute Of Plant Health ... on 9 April, 2025

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

               WRIT APPEAL Nos.889 and 898 of 2023


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)

These intra-Court appeals are directed against order dated

28.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.31494 of 2016. W.A.Nos.898 and

889 of 2023 have been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent

No.3 respectively challenging the findings that went against them

in the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the parties

are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Writ

Court.

2. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors

of the Court till the Supreme Court. There is a chequered history

of litigation, which can be briefly stated as under:

Facts:

3. On 21.01.2016, advertisement Notification No.1/2016 was

issued inviting candidature for the post of Assistant Director

(Plant Health Management). The National Institute for Plant

Health Management ('NIPHM') Service Bye-Laws, 2008 ('Bye

Laws'), lays down the service conditions and the same can be

treated as recruitment rules for the aforesaid post. The last date

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

for submission of applications was 31.05.2016. On 16.06.2016,

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 Lavanya/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 filed W.P.No.31494 of

2016 before this Court and on 17.10.2016, this Court granted

interim suspension on appointment of respondent No.3. On

28.08.2023, the said Writ Petition was decided by the learned

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 notification afresh as per relevant criteria.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeals have

been filed by the writ petitioner and respondent No.3. These Writ

Appeals were decided by common judgment of this Court dated

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

12.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, respondent

No.3 filed Civil Appeal No.13521 of 2024 before the Supreme

Court, which was decided on 21.11.2024. The Supreme Court set

aside the common judgment dated 12.09.2023 and remitted back

the matter to this Court for fresh adjudication of the Writ Appeals.

Thus, these Writ Appeals are now listed for hearing.

Contention of the writ petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.898 of 2023:

5. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.898 of 2023 submits that the Bye-

Laws are silent about criteria for selection. The said criteria were

accordingly laid down in advertisement Notification No.1/2016.

The advertisement provides 'procedure for selection' and makes it

clear that selection to the post in question will be based on written

test, power point presentation and interview. Thus, the marks

have been given to the candidates only under these heads. By

placing reliance on the marks prepared by the official

respondents, it is urged that if these three heads are taken into

account, the writ petitioner secured 78.05 and respondent No.3

secured only 73.75 marks.

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

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 modified selection criteria by

adding weightage to (i) M.Sc./Ph.D. qualification, (ii) publications,

recognition and additional experience and (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 Court 1.

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 21.01.2016. Thus, the said

paragraph of the judgment is liable to be set aside and modified to

the said extent.

2024 SCC Online SC 3184

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

Contention of respondent No.3/appellant in W.A.No.889 of 2023:

8. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

No.3/appellant in W.A.No.889 of 2023 submits that respondent

No.3 is working since 2016. The writ petitioner was earlier

selected for the post of Scientific Officer and for the said selection,

the then Selection Committee applied the same criteria which was

applied for the post of Assistant Director (PHM). After having

participated in the previous selection for the post of Scientific

Officer, it is not correct on the part of the writ petitioner to say

that she was not aware about the criteria of selection.

9. The next submission is based on the judgment of Supreme

Court in the case of Srinivas K. Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of

Medical Sciences 2, wherein it was held that if selection is not

called in question, the appointment cannot be interfered with. By

taking this Court to the procedure of Selection Committee, Sri

Rahul Reddy, strenuously contended that the Selection Committee

adopted its 2013 procedure which was known to the writ

petitioner. The Bye-Laws permitted the Selection Committee to

adopt any uniformly applicable criteria/procedure. All the

(2022) 1 SCC 49

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 counsel 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 80 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 modification of marks of

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

written examination has not caused any prejudice to any

candidate.

Contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2/Department:

11. Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Writ Petition submits that

Clause 9 of the Bye Laws permits the Selection Committee to

select the candidates for various posts. Thus, no fault can be

found in the action of the selection committee in preparing its own

criteria which was made applicable uniformly to all the

candidates. In obedience of the order of the Writ Court, the

Department may proceed to issue fresh advertisement.

Rejoinder submissions:

12. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for writ petitioner

by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner

(Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly 3, submitted that

the parties while approaching the Court for grant of relief is

solemnly obliged to candidly disclose all the material and

important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the

(2010) 4 SCC 728

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 16.06.2016, the Selection Committee

informed orally about guidelines adopted by the Committee, but

the Department while filing 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

Jharkhand 4, to submit that after having seen the criteria for

appointment in the advertisement, the writ 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 perused the record.

Findings:-

15. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to refer to

certain relevant clauses from the Bye Laws and advertisement.

Clause 9 of the Bye Laws reads thus:

2025 SCC OnLine SC 210

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

"9. Selection of Candidates for Recruitment to Various Posts:

(i) Selection of Candidates to various posts shall be made by Selection Committee to be constituted by respective appointing authorities for the purpose from time to time."

16. The 'Procedure for Selection' in relation to post in question is

defined in the advertisement as under:

"B. PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION

1. Assistant Director (PHM): Selection to the post will be based on written test, power point presentation and interview."

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. A careful reading of Bye Laws and in particular Clause 9

shows that it only talks about constitution of Selection Committee

which will undertake the exercise of selection. However, no clause

could be brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the

parties, which deals with criteria/method of selection. Thus, on

this aspect Bye Laws are of no assistance.

18. The advertisement deals with procedure for selection and

makes it clear that selection will be based on (i) written test,

(ii) power point presentation and (iii) interview.

19. This is trite that if there is inconsistency between the Rule,

Bye Law or advertisement, Rule will prevail. However, in the

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

peculiar 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 clear about the

procedure/criteria for selection, hence, adding of new

criteria/weightage certainly runs contrary to the recent

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 filling up of vacancies;

65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary 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 satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;

65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] . Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non- arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;

65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;"

(Emphasis Supplied)

20. The advertisement does not have any statutory force, but it

can be equated at least with an executive instruction. In view of

above judgment, this criteria laid down in the advertisement is

binding and shifting or inserting of new criteria in the midst of

selection amounts to change in the rule of game in midway. Thus,

we are unable to countenance the stand taken before us by the

Department and unofficial respondent i.e., respondent No.3.

21. Learned Single Judge rightly opined that there is no express

or implied enabling provision with the Department which enables

the Selection Committee to adopt and introduce its own criteria

and take a shift from a criteria prescribed in the advertisement.

22. So far, the argument of Sri S. Rahul Reddy that the writ

petitioner was selected in the year 2011 for the post of Scientific

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

Officer, wherein the method of selection was same and therefore,

she cannot plead ignorance about the method of selection is

concerned, we are only inclined to observe that we do not find any

merit in this contention. The selection in the post of Scientific

Officer was altogether independent and separate selection. In the

selection in question, an independent advertisement i.e.,

advertisement Notification No.1/2016 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 Selection Committee informed on

the date of selection about change of criteria, the criteria stood

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

changed midway after selection process commenced from the date

of issuance of the advertisement.

24. Apart from this, curiously, the pleadings shown to us which

were taken by respondent No.3 before the Supreme Court and

relevant paragraph of counter of Government shows that both of

them have taken a diametrically opposite stand on the factum of

giving any such information to the candidates. The Department in

clear terms stated that no such information was given to the

candidates. Thus, this argument cannot cut any ice.

25. The record of Selection Committee shows that initially, the

marks of written examination were given from total marks of 80.

The writ petitioner secured 50 marks, whereas respondent No.3

secured 40 marks. Later on, the Selection Committee prepared

consolidated marks for written test, power point presentation,

interview and added marks on the head of M.Sc., Ph.D., work

accomplishment, experience, advance training and paper

publication. Thus, the total marks given on the head of written

examination were reduced from 80 to 20. Because of a new

methodology and criteria adopted by the Selection Committee

which runs contrary to the criteria prescribed in the

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 10 more marks than

respondent No.3.

26. In view of Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash

Pathak (supra), we are inclined to hold that this methodology

adopted by the 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 an 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 norms for selection and

accordingly select the candidates.

28. 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

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J WA_889_&_898_2023

marks on those heads, the proper course would be to set aside

those findings of the Selection Committee and issue a direction to

the Selection Committee to take into account only those marks

which are arising out of the criteria laid down in the

advertisement. Thus, Selection Committee, in the instant case,

needs to take into account the marks obtained by the candidates

in the head of written examination, power point presentation and

interview. On the basis of these marks already secured by the

candidates and, after deleting the marks given on other heads

which were not in the advertisement, a new select list needs to be

redrawn and most meritorious candidates needs to be selected

and appointed. To this extent, the impugned order of learned

Single Judge deserves interference and modification.

29. Paragraph No. 12(3) of impugned order of learned Single

Judge stood modified accordingly. Merely because respondent

No.3 worked for quite some time, no right or equity is created in

her favour because writ petitioner was diligently and constantly

contesting for her rights. Thus, on the ground of equity, the

appointment of respondent No.3 cannot be saved.

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.889 of 2023

filed by Dr.E.Sree Latha is dismissed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

______________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 09.04.2025 GVR/TJMR