DR. V. RAGHURAMULU VS. COFFEE BOARD ( 1 ) THE petitioner contends that he holds a M. Sc. (Ag.) degree from the University of Agricultural Sciences and that he holds a Doctorate Degree - Ph. D. , (Horticulture:) from the same University. That he has an excellent academic record and has many achievements to his credit. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Agronomist in the first respondent-Board in the year 1987 and as an agronomist in the year 1990. He was promoted as Divisional Head of Agronomy. He has been discharging duties in the said post and as Coffee Scientist (FAO Project ). ( 3 ) IT:is contended that the post of Director, coffee Research Institute had fallen vacant as on 30-6-2004. The respondent-Board had invited applications, in the prescribed form, to the post and the notification was published in an English daily newspaper. The last date for receipt of application was indicated as 30-1-2004. The minimum qualification prescribed was a Doctorate Degree in any branch of Agricultural or Horticultural Sciences. The age limit was prescribed as 50 years. ( 4 ) THE petitioner had submitted his application to be considered for the post. The Board having proceeded to select and appoint respondent No. 3 for the said post. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition. ( 5 ) SHRI S. V. Narasimhan appearing for the petitioner contends that the third respondent who possessed a doctorate degree in Chemistry and not in Agricultural or Horticultural science which was the requisite qualification was not qualified to apply for the post. ( 6 ) THE third respondent was over aged as on the last date for receipt of the applications and was thus disqualified on that account. ( 7 ) THE petitioner believed that he was recommended as the first candidate in the order of merit by an expert panel consisting of three vice-Chancellors of Agricultural Universities and two Directors of ICAR Institutes. Respondent No. 3 found place at No. 3. in the order of merit. However, the select list on being forwarded to respondent No. 2. respondent no. 3 has been selected and appointed overriding the qualifications, eligibility and merit of the petitioner while relaxing the same in respect of respondent No. 3 without any legal or rational basis and would hence require to be quashed on the face of it. However, the select list on being forwarded to respondent No. 2. respondent no. 3 has been selected and appointed overriding the qualifications, eligibility and merit of the petitioner while relaxing the same in respect of respondent No. 3 without any legal or rational basis and would hence require to be quashed on the face of it. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in its statement of objections contends that among the applicants to the post of Director of Research, there were both in-service candidates as well as outsiders. Though there were applicants without the prescribed qualification, in view of their vast experience in coffee related subjects, the board had felt that the requirements could be relaxed. It is in this manner that respondent no. 3 had been chosen. And since he had attained 50 years only as on 24-1-2004, it is contended he could not be considered as over aged on 30-1-2004. It is stated that a panel of experts who assisted the Executive Committee of the Board short-listed 5 candidates and the committee in turn selected 3 candidates in order of merit and forwarded the same to the Central Government for approval with a recommendation to appoint the petitioner as per Rule 6 of the Coffee Board (Cadre and recruitment) Rules, 1993. Respondent No. 3 was at No. 3 in the order of merit. ( 9 ) THE Central Government however, opined that respondent No. 3 be selected on account of his seniority over the petitioner and for the vast number of publications to his credit and in recognition of his capability for independent research. Accordingly respondent No. 3 had been appointed. And that there is no illegality in the said appointment. ( 10 ) IT is further contended by way of amendment that the age of respondent No. 3 was relevant only as on the date of advertisement namely 22-12-2003 which was considered as the cut-off date and, therefore, he had not completed 50 years of age and was not ineligible. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 in its statement of objections contends that the Central Government after examining the panel of names and on a comparison of the relative merits of the candidates, conveyed its approval for the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3. And that the discretion in the section of the candidate for the post of Director is with the Central Government. And that the discretion in the section of the candidate for the post of Director is with the Central Government. Further the rules do provide for consideration of suitability of the candidate as well as for relaxation of conditions. The petitioner has not demonstrated any illegal or mala fide motives on the part of the central Government in making the appointment. Hence seek the dismissal of the petition. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 in his statement of objections contends that he was appointed as the Head of the Chemistry Division of the central Coffee Research Institute from 7-12-1986 till July 2003. That the Chemistry Division comprises of Department of Agricultural chemistry, Soil Sciences and Soil Testing laboratories which deals with all the nutritional agronomical practices adopted in coffee cultivation. ( 13 ) IT is contended that the Coffee Board research Department consists of 8 scientific divisions out of them 7 are pure science divisions. Only Agronomy is an agricultural branch and works with the aid of other departments. The respondent has held that the post of Joint Director of Research which is the No. 2 position in the Institute and has the requisite experience, seniority and qualification to be appointed the Director. ( 14 ) EMPHASIZING the relevance of his educational qualification the respondent contends that he is a post-graduate in Chemistry with a ph. D. in Chemistry. The study of Chemistry at the post-graduate level includes the study of Agricultural Sciences such as soil science, plant analysis, nutritional aspects which is a part of agricultural science. The study of chemistry involves the study of various branches of agricultural sciences. ( 15 ) THAT the respondent has 27 years of research experience and has published over 85 scientific publications. He has worked with research institutes abroad. ( 16 ) IN so far as the recommendation of the panel of names by the Executive Committee of the Board is concerned, the respondent No. 3 contends that the recommendation was not in order of merit. The Central Government has after considering the superior qualifications and suitability of the respondent had selected him. ( 17 ) IT is contended that the Government of india has held that Government servants may be allowed relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit. ( 18 ) THE petitioner has sought to meet the objections filed by the respondents by way of rejoinders. ( 17 ) IT is contended that the Government of india has held that Government servants may be allowed relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit. ( 18 ) THE petitioner has sought to meet the objections filed by the respondents by way of rejoinders. ( 19 ) THE relevant records of the Government of India were called for and perused, ( 20 ) IT is seen from the record that after a detailed appraisal of the 7 candidates who were called for interview, the expert panel consisting of 5 outside experts recommended 5 names in order of merit based on a comprehensive assessment of their academic qualifications, publications, notable research achievements, vision for coffee research and the capacity to head the research organisation- the petitioner was on top of the list and respondent No. 3 at No. 3. ( 21 ) THE Executive Committee in turn recommended the first three names, in order of merit, for appointment t the post of Director. The Chairperson of the Board proposed the name of the petitioner to be approved for appointment as Director. ( 22 ) OVERRULING the further recommendations of the officers of the Department which were in line with the proposal, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has ruled : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . If one compares the biodata of dr. Y. Raghuramulu and Dr. Jayaram, it emerges that Dr. Jayaram is senior to Dr. Y. Raghuramulu as the former was directly recruited to the post of Head of Division. It is also seen that Dr. Jayaram has published as many as 87 scientific papers, whereas Dr. Y. Raghuramulu has published only 13 research articles. It was also noted that Dr. Jayaram has submitted a patents application, which indicates his capability for independent research. In light of the same, I find that Dr. Jayaram is more senior as also more capable than Dr. Y. Raghuramulu. Accordingly Dr. Jayaram should be considered for appointment as Director (Research) CCRI Coffee board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 23 ) IN this regard the counsel for respondent No. 3 has relied on several authorities to contend that it is not function of the Court to scrutinize the relative merits of candidates unless mala fides are attributed. Dr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 23 ) IN this regard the counsel for respondent No. 3 has relied on several authorities to contend that it is not function of the Court to scrutinize the relative merits of candidates unless mala fides are attributed. Dr. Saraswati v. University of Mysore. 1997 (l)Kar L. I 527 ( 24 ) FURTHER if the concerned committee found aparticular qualification to be adequate compliance with the prescribed qualification- the Court ought not to interfere.-Bhagawan Singh v. Slate of Punjab (1999)9 SCC 573 . ( 25 ) IF the expert committee holding that a person had the requisite qualification on the ground that he had an equivalent degree - in such anevent the Court should not take a different view.-Jagat Bahdur Chakrabordi v. G. C. Roy (2000)9 SCC 739 . ( 26 ) KEEPING in view the law as laid down, it is seen that in terms of Rule 6 (b) the appointing authority in the case of Director of research is the Chairman of the Board with the approval of the Government. ( 27 ) IN the instant case the Chairman had with the assistance of the Executive Committee and an expert panel consisting of no less than three Vice-Chancellors and two Directors of Research Institutes recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Director. The officers of the Secretariat have also recommended approval of the same. The Minister in approving the name of respondent No. 3 has proceeded to make his own assessment of the relative merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 - reversing the careful choice made by the Chairman, the present case is a classic example of arbitrary action. The minister could at best have stopped short of disapproving the appointment of the petitioner for good reason. In which event the chairman would have had to recommend such other names. The Minister was not in a position to take a unilateral decision which did not even have the concurrence of the Secretary to the Department of Commerce and Industry let alone any expert body which could have advised the Minister in making the appointment of respondent No. 3 when the Government was required to indicate its approval or disapproval of the proposed appointment of the petitioner. In this light of the matter the circumstances clearly warrant interference of this Court. ( 28 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Annexure-'e" is quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to appoint the petitioner as Director of research in the first respondent-Board, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.