Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 650 (KER)

Jose Sebastian v. State of Kerala

2013-07-29

P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2013
Judgment : In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P2 Government order dated 23.2.2012 appointing the fourth respondent as Director of the Gulathi Institute of Finance and Taxation and a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him as Director of the Gulathi Institute of Finance and Taxation with retrospective effect from the date on which the fourth respondent was appointed. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the pleadings are as follows: 2. The Gulathi Institute of Finance and Taxation (formerly known as the Centre for Taxation Studies) is an autonomous institution of the Government of Kerala, formed as per G.O.(MS) No.46/91/TD dated 19.3.1991 and registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. With financial support from the Government of India, the Gulathi Institute of Finance and Taxation (the GIFT for short) was upgraded as a national level institute as per G.O.(MS)No.31/09/TD dated 25.5.2009. A copy of the rules and regulations governing the GIFT is produced as Ext.R3(A) along with the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. Rule 6(i) of Ext.R3(A) stipulates that the GIFT shall consist of a governing body with not less than 12 persons and not more than 30 persons and consisting of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and a Director. The rules also stipulate that an executive committee with not less than 5 and not more than 9 persons shall be elected from among the members of the governing body and constituted by the governing body. Rule 6 (ii) of Ext.R3(A) stipulates that the Chairman of the GIFT may be appointed by the Government from among renowned scholars/experts in the field of Public Finance and Policy, Management, Development Economics and Taxation Laws. It is stipulated therein that the Director shall be a full time salaried officer and shall be appointed by the Government from among renowned scholars in the field of Public Finance and Policy, Management, Development Economics and Taxation Laws. 3. By G.O.(MS) dated 39/11/TD dated 28.2.2011, the post of Director of GIFT was created by the Government in the scale of pay of 37400-67000 + AGP 12000. 3. By G.O.(MS) dated 39/11/TD dated 28.2.2011, the post of Director of GIFT was created by the Government in the scale of pay of 37400-67000 + AGP 12000. The Government thereafter issued Ext.R3(B) order dated 29.9.2011, constituting a search committee comprising of Sri.K.M.Chandrasekharan, Vice Chairman, State Planning Board as Chairman and Professor Govinda Rao, Director of National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, Government of India, as Member. The Government also directed that the search committee will suggest three suitable names to the Government for being considered for appointment as full time Director of the GIFT. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was directed to render all assistance to the search committee for the purpose. 4. The Government of Kerala thereafter issued Ext.P1 notification dated 4.11.2011 inviting applications from eligible applicants for the post of Director of the GIFT. In the said notification it was stipulated that the applicants should not be more than 55 years of age as on 1.1.2012, that the applications should reach the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes not later than 9.12.2011 and that interested candidates may sent their curriculum vitae by registered post to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Public Office Building, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, PIN-695033. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification five names came up for consideration, that as per Ext.R3(B) Government order dated 29.9.2011, the search committee was to suggest three suitable names to the Government for being considered for appointment as Director of the GIFT, instead, the search committee submitted the name of the fourth respondent and that pursuant thereto, he was appointed by Ext.P2 Government order dated 23.2.2012. The petitioner has in paragraph 6 of the writ petition averred that he was the only eligible candidate, that the interview was a farce, that candidates from Commerce and Law faculties should not have been called for the interview, that he has been working in the GIFT for the past 18 years, that he is the author of two books on public finance related areas and that he was a member of the committees constituted by the Government of Kerala on Taxation and Public Finance related matters. He has averred in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that in Ext.P1 notification it is stipulated that as on 1.1.2012, the applicant should not be more than 55 years, that as on 1.1.2012 the fourth respondent had completed 59 years of age, that his basic training is in Statistics at the graduate, post graduate and doctoral level, that the experience and qualification of the fourth respondent has nothing to do with public finance and taxation, that there is not even a single work or publication related to this area in his entire career of 30 years and that his appointment is biased and in violation of Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the fourth respondent does not have any academic qualification making him eligible for appointment and that the only reason for his appointment is that he is close to one of the members of the search committee who hails from his native place, that the fourth respondent was facing threat of dismissal from the Centre for Development Studies where he was previously working on allegations of sexual harassment and that he escaped on technical grounds. The petitioner has also averred that the fourth respondent who was working in the Centre for Development Studies since 1983 was involved in sexual harassment cases and was advised by the Director of the Centre for Development Studies to resign or to take voluntary retirement. The petitioner has also averred in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that if the search committee had acted as per Ext.P1 notification he ought to have been appointed and that it was to pre-empt the possibility of the petitioner being appointed that the search committee bypassed the requirement of submitting a panel of three candidates to the Government and submitted the name of the fourth respondent alone. He has alleged that the entire proceedings is vitiated by fraud, illegality and irregularity. 5. A counter affidavit dated 8.2.2013 has been filed on behalf of the State of Kerala, the first respondent in the writ petition. He has alleged that the entire proceedings is vitiated by fraud, illegality and irregularity. 5. A counter affidavit dated 8.2.2013 has been filed on behalf of the State of Kerala, the first respondent in the writ petition. In paragraph 3 thereof it is stated that the Government had by Ext.R3 (B) order dated 29.9.2011 constituted a search committee to suggest to the Government three suitable names for being considered for appointment as Director of the GIFT, that the committee chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board evaluated the resumes of four candidates, namely Dr.Jose Sebastian (the petitioner), Sri.N.Ramalingam, Smt.Mariamma.A.K. and Dr.Jose Jacob, that the committee after interview found none of them suitable for the post, that thereafter the committee evaluated the resume of the fourth respondent, which was received in search mode, that he was interviewed and found eligible for the post. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the State of Kerala has averred that since the fourth respondent was found eligible for the post, the committee decided to waive the conditions specified in Ext.P1 notification and to recommend his candidature, he being the lone candidate found eligible and suitable for appointment as Director of the GIFT. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the State of Kerala has averred that the search committee had taken into account the age factor also and as the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT did not prescribe any upper age limit, the fourth respondent was considered for selection and this fact was also mentioned in the minutes of the search committee. As regards the allegation of sexual harassment against the fourth respondent, the State of Kerala has averred in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the fourth respondent applied for voluntary retirement and did not resign and that no enquiry was pending against him at any point of time. The State of Kerala has also averred that the Director, Centre for Development Studies, had reported that the fourth respondent had received a written offer for appointment from the GIFT even before the allegation of sexual harassment was made and hence the allegation of sexual harassment against the fourth respondent is baseless. The State of Kerala has also averred that the order issued by the Government appointing the fourth respondent is legal and proper and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT. 6. The State of Kerala has also averred that the order issued by the Government appointing the fourth respondent is legal and proper and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT. 6. A counter affidavit dated 6.12.2012 has been filed on behalf of the third respondent (the GIFT) by its Registrar. In paragraph 8 thereof he has averred that though a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates was published in two national dailies, only four candidates including the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement. In paragraph 9 thereof he has averred that the search committee perused their curriculum vitae and prima facie the members of the search committee found that none of the candidates was suitable. He has also averred that they were therefore in the process of searching for suitable candidates through the internet, that they contacted certain persons, but many of them conveyed their inability to come to Kerala and take up the assignment on various grounds and that only one candidate, namely the fourth respondent, was prepared to take up the assignment with the service conditions offered. In paragraph 10 he has averred that however, an interview was conducted to screen the eligibility of the four candidates who had applied for the post for the reason that the chances of getting a better qualified candidate should not be excluded, though prima facie the members of the search committee found that the curriculum vitae of the said candidates were not satisfactory. He has averred that all the four candidates who had applied for the post pursuant to the notification were found unsuitable for appointment, that the search committee proceeded to evaluate the resume of the fourth respondent meticulously and found that he had the requisite academic and research credentials with adequate international exposure and felt that he has the capability to provide academic leadership to the Institute. The deponent has averred that the search committee had also noted that the age limit specified in the advertisement need not be adhered to as the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT do not prescribe any condition with regard to the upper age limit. The deponent has averred that the search committee had also noted that the age limit specified in the advertisement need not be adhered to as the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT do not prescribe any condition with regard to the upper age limit. As regards the stipulation in the Government order dated 29.9.2011 that the committee will suggest to the Government three suitable names for being appointed, he has averred that as the fourth respondent was the only candidate who was found suitable for appointment to the post, the committee decided to waive the condition and recommend to the Government that he may be appointed as Director of the GIFT. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the search committee is produced and marked as Ext.R3 (C). In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit the deponent has averred that the Government accepted the recommendation of the search committee and appointed the fourth respondent as Director of the GIFT since there were no other eligible candidates and that the appointment is in order. 7. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 7.1.2013 in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. In paragraph 4 thereof he has averred that the minutes of the search committee does not mention anything about the bench mark, that he satisfied the conditions stipulated in the notification, that the selection process was a farce, that the selection committee invited Dr.N.Ramalingam and Dr.Mariamma.A.K., whose subjects were Commerce and Law respectively, against the spirit of Ext.P1 notification, that there is nothing in the minutes to show that the search committee had adopted any objective criteria to assess the qualifications of the petitioner and that the search committee disqualified him to favour the fourth respondent. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit the petitioner has averred that the selection process adopted by the search committee is against Ext.R3(B) Government order dated 29.9.2011 and Ext.P1 notification. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit the petitioner has averred that the fourth respondent is a Statistician by training, that he had not studied Public Finance or Taxation at graduate or post graduate level nor made any academic contribution in his entire career and that the search committee has not taken note of the fact that the petitioner has got academic and research credentials in public finance and taxation. 8. 8. The fourth respondent, the selected candidate and the person appointed as Director of the GIFT, has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 11.12.2012. In paragraph 4 thereof, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, he has averred that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification four persons including the petitioner applied for the post, but none of them were found suitable and as a result, appointment on the basis of Ext.P1 notification became impossible and therefore, the search committee resorted to search method by which they collected the curriculum vitae of reputed persons for appointment to the post of Director. In paragraph 4 he has also averred that his curriculum vitae was also collected since they found him an eminently suitable person to be considered for appointment to the post of Director and after assessing his curriculum vitae, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes contacted him over phone and also sent him a letter to be prepared for the interview to be held on 11.1.2012. The fourth respondent has further averred that accordingly, after the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification were interviewed and found unsuitable, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes contacted him over the phone to come for the interview and the search committee members interviewed him and on the basis of their recommendation, Ext.P2 appointment order was issued appointing him as Director of GIFT and he joined duty on 5.3.2012. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit he has averred that the petitioner is unsuitable to be appointed as Director, that going by Ext.P1 notification, the applicant should be in the rank of Associate Professor or Professor who is academically qualified for the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor, that the petitioner has never been associated with teaching and therefore he is not qualified to apply for the post of Director. Reliance is placed on Ext.R4(a) letter dated 28.9.2012 sent by the State Public Information Officer of the GIFT to him in support of the said contention. The fourth respondent has in paragraph 5 of his counter affidavit also averred that as per clause 2 (c) of Ext.P1 notification the applicant should have a history of guiding research students in his academic career, that the petitioner has not guided a single student for research in his professional career and therefore, he is not qualified for the post. The fourth respondent has in paragraph 5 of his counter affidavit also averred that as per clause 2 (c) of Ext.P1 notification the applicant should have a history of guiding research students in his academic career, that the petitioner has not guided a single student for research in his professional career and therefore, he is not qualified for the post. The fourth respondent has in paragraph 5 also averred that as the search committee prima facie came to the conclusion that qualified persons did not apply for the post and therefore a selection on the basis of Ext.P1 notification may not be possible, the search committee collected the curriculum vitae of renowned scholars and among them he alone was available for the interview held on 11.1.2012 and willing to accept the post and hence he was appointed. With reference to the contention that he is over aged for the post, the fourth respondent has in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit averred that the Rules and Regulations of the GIFT do not prescribe any age limit for appointment to the post of Director, that the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor is 60 years and it was earlier 56 years, that the post of Director is comparable to that of Pro-Vice Chancellor and therefore there is nothing wrong in his appointment at the age of 59 years. In paragraph 7 of his counter affidavit the fourth respondent has averred that Ext.P4 curriculum vitae would show that he is a renowned scholar in the field of Public Finance and Policy, Management, Development Economics and Taxation Laws, that several of his publications included in the curriculum vitae have a bearing on taxation laws, that he has got a Ph.D. in taxation related matters, that there are publications to his credit and that most of his publications are in the field of economics as is evident from the title of the thesis mentioned in the curriculum vitae. In paragraph 9 of his counter affidavit the fourth respondent has averred with reference to the allegations of sexual harassment against him raised in the writ petition that the said allegations are without any bona fides, that when he was appointed as Director of the GIFT there were no such allegations, that he applied for voluntary retirement from service on 1.3.2012 and the Director, Centre for Development Studies granted it on the same day, that he got a notice from the committee against sexual harassment on 23.3.2012 without a copy of the complaint, that he thereupon sent a reply that a copy of the complaint has not been sent to him for giving a reply, that the second notice did not also carry a copy of the complaint, that a copy of the complaint was not given to him for the reason that there is no substance in the allegation and that the allegations were made with the mala fide intention of tarnishing his image and the committee constituted to enquire into the matter could not find any evidence against him. In paragraph 11 of his counter affidavit the fourth respondent has averred that he was appointed as Director of the GIFT not on the basis of Ext.P1 notification, but on the basis of selection made through search method. The fourth respondent has also averred that the petitioner, who is unsuitable for the post of Director is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to challenge the order of appointment. He also averred that the petitioner cannot file a public interest litigation in a service matter, since public interest litigation in service matters is not maintainable in law and for that reason also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 7.1.2013 in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. In paragraph 3 thereof he has averred that if as contended all the four candidates who had applied were not qualified, the search committee should have re-advertised the post relaxing the age and qualifications to permit a wider selection, that there is no evidence to show that the search committee had contacted anyone other than the fourth respondent and if the search committee had made an earnest effort to find suitable persons, it is possible that several persons would have come forward. The petitioner has also averred that after the interview, a panel of three names could have been submitted to the Government in terms of Ext.R3(B) order, that this would have given the Government the option of selecting a candidate from the panel, that it seems that the search committee wanted to deny the Government the exercise of such discretion and even if the fourth respondent was included in such a panel, it would not have guaranteed his appointment. The petitioner has also averred that apparently the search committee had foreseen that possibility and in order to pre-empt it, recommended the name of the fourth respondent alone. He has also averred that if the whole exercise leading to the appointment of the fourth respondent is viewed, it can be seen that the search committee had a hidden agenda to place him as Director of the GIFT and for this purpose it had conducted a farce of an interview and disqualified the petitioner by bracketing him along with the three other candidates who were not even qualified to be invited for interview going by the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner has in paragraph 4 of his reply affidavit averred that the main function of the GIFT is to undertake academic as well as policy oriented research in the specialised area, that teaching is not the primary activity of the GIFT, that the GIFT is not affiliated to any university and is not conducting any Ph.D. or M.Phil programmes and that it is unfair to state that he is not qualified for the post of Director of the GIFT. The petitioner has also reiterated the contentions raised by him in the writ petition. 10. I heard Sri.D.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.K.P.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent. The petitioner has also reiterated the contentions raised by him in the writ petition. 10. I heard Sri.D.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.K.P.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent. Sri.D.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the fourth respondent's appointment as per Ext.P2 order is not in tune with Ext.P1 notification dated 4.11.2011, that in Ext.P1 notification it was stipulated that the applicant should not be aged more than 55 years as on 1.1.2012, that Ext.P1 notification did not contain any provision for relaxation of the upper age limit, that the rules also does not empower grant of such relaxation and therefore, the appointment of the fourth respondent, who had admittedly attained 59 years of age as on 1.1.2012, is illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner's experience is in Public Finance and Policy, Management, Development Economics and Taxation Laws, but the selected candidate, namely the fourth respondent, is only a Statistician and on that score also, the fourth respondent's appointment is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel contended that on the terms of Ext.P1 notification even assuming that the fourth respondent possesses the academic and professional requirements as he is not a scholar in the field of Public Finance and Policy, Management, Development Economics and Taxation Laws, but only a Statistician and he had not applied for the post, it cannot be said that his appointment is in order. 11. Referring to Ext.R3(c) minutes of the search committee, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the search committee has not stated as to when and in what manner the resume of the fourth respondent had been received, that the search committee has also not stated whether it had received the resume of any other person, that the details of the institutions or persons who had been contacted in the search mode are also not mentioned therein and that the entire procedure adopted by the search committee is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the totality of the facts and circumstances, discernible from the minutes of the search committee and the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent make it evident that the search committee acted arbitrarily and illegally when it called the fourth respondent for interview over telephone through the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and recommended his candidature for appointment contrary to the terms and stipulations in Ext.R3(B) Government order and Ext.P1 notification. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sharafudeen Kunju v. Manoharan Pillai [2011 (2) KLT SN 18 (C.No.25)] and the decision of the Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. ( AIR 2012 SC 1803 ), the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the selection procedure stipulated in the notification inviting applications has to be scrupulously followed, that in the instant case, it was not stipulated in the notification that the search committee would consider applications received otherwise than in pursuance to Ext.P1 notification and therefore, on that short ground, the fourth respondent's appointment is liable to be set aside. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Desh Raj ( AIR 2007 SC 628 ) the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that appointments if any in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are illegal and ab initio void and therefore, the appointment of the fourth respondent which is arbitrary and illegal is liable to be declared illegal and void ab initio. Relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India & Another. v. M.K.Ramaswamy & Ors. (2011 (4) KHC 349 (DB)) the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that lack of transparency and fairness in the selection process are good reasons for judicial interference, that in the instant case, the pleadings and the materials on record, more particularly the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and Ext.R3(C) minutes produced by the third respondent disclose lack of transparency and fairness in the selection process and therefore, the fourth respondent's appointment is liable to be invalidated. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Deepthy Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur & Ors. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Deepthy Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur & Ors. [ 2008 (4) KLT 321 ], the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when from the materials on record it is evident that the fourth respondent's appointment was as a result of the fraud committed by the search committee and it is against the stipulations in Ext.P1 notification, this Court will be perfectly justified in interfering with his selection and appointment. 12. Per contra Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent contended that as none of the four candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification were found qualified, the search committee which had previously collected the curriculum vitae of various persons including the fourth respondent, reviewed the resume thus collected and on noticing that the fourth respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria called him for interview, interviewed him and found him fit and recommended his appointment to the post of Director of the GIFT. The learned Senior Advocate contended that the petitioner who is not qualified even on the terms of Ext.P1 notification for the reason that he does not have a history of guiding research students during his career, cannot challenge the fourth respondent's appointment. The learned Senior Advocate also place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. [ (2006) 11 SCC 731 ], Dr.Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [ 1998 (7) SCC 273 ], Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (2005) 1 SCC 590 ] and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [ (2005) 5 SCC 136 ] in support of his contention. The learned Senior Advocate also contended relying on the aforesaid decisions that certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified for the post and is a candidate for the post and that the appointment cannot be challenged by one who is himself not qualified to be appointed. The learned Senior Advocate also contended relying on the aforesaid decisions that certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified for the post and is a candidate for the post and that the appointment cannot be challenged by one who is himself not qualified to be appointed. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent contended relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court that a public interest litigation in service matters is not maintainable and therefore, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner who is not qualified for the post is liable to be thrown out on that short ground. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 reiterated the aforesaid submissions. 13. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from Ext.R3(B) Government order that a search committee consisting of two members was constituted to identify and empanel eminent academicians and scholars for appointment as full time Director of the GIFT. In terms of that Government order, the search committee was to suggest to the Government three suitable names for being considered for appointment as Director of the GIFT. It is evident from Ext.P1 notification that the method adopted by the search committee to identify and empanel eminent academicians and scholars was to invite applications by publishing a notification. It is evident from the averments in the affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent that a notification inviting applications was published in two national dailies. The search committee had also stipulated in the notification that the applicant should not be aged more than 55 years as on 1.1.2012 and that interested candidates may sent their curriculum vitae by registered post to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and that the application should reach the designated address not later than 9.1.2012. The fourth respondent admittedly did not respond to Ext.P1 notification. He has no case that he was unaware of Ext.P1 notification or that he had applied in time. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, four applications had been received. The said four applicants were interviewed at 3 P.M. on 11.1.2012 by the search committee. The fourth respondent admittedly did not respond to Ext.P1 notification. He has no case that he was unaware of Ext.P1 notification or that he had applied in time. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, four applications had been received. The said four applicants were interviewed at 3 P.M. on 11.1.2012 by the search committee. The interview commenced at 3 P.M. The fact that the fourth respondent was admittedly not present at 3 P.M. on 11.1.2012 before the search committee is evident from the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by him. The case set out by the fourth respondent in paragraph 4 of his counter affidavit is that after his curriculum vitae was assessed, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who was directed to give assistance to the search committee contacted him over telephone and also sent a letter to be prepared for the interview to be held on 11.1.2012. The said letter is however not produced. From the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is evident that the letter would have been sent before the date stipulated for the interview. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that after the interview of the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was over, finding that all the candidates were unsuitable, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes contacted him over phone to come for the interview and he was interviewed and appointed. The fourth respondent has also averred that as none of the candidates who had applied were found suitable, the search committee constituted by the Government resorted to search method and they collected the curriculum vitae of qualified persons including him. What was the date on which the resume was collected is not set out. Who are the persons who were contacted in the search mode and from whom were resume collected is also not disclosed. The Government have also not furnished the said particulars. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the search committee deviating from the procedure prescribed in Ext.P1 notification is arbitrary and illegal. Ext.R3(B) Government order discloses that the search committee was bound to suggest to the Government three suitable names for being considered for appointment. It was pursuant thereto that Ext.P1 notification was issued. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the search committee deviating from the procedure prescribed in Ext.P1 notification is arbitrary and illegal. Ext.R3(B) Government order discloses that the search committee was bound to suggest to the Government three suitable names for being considered for appointment. It was pursuant thereto that Ext.P1 notification was issued. After having issued a notification inviting applications from eligible persons, the search committee could not have in my opinion scouted for talent, and that too, even before the candidates who had applied pursuant to the notification were interviewed. The fourth respondent has no case that he was unaware of Ext.P1 notification. For reasons best known to him he did not apply for the post. He was also over-aged. On the date of Ext.P1 notification and on the last date stipulated therein, he was employed in the Centre for Development Studies. In my opinion, the search committee acted arbitrarily and illegally when it gave up the procedure it had adopted by issuing Ext.P1 notification and recommended the appointment of a person who had not applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification on the ground that after interview he was found to be suitable. 14. Ext.R3(c), the minutes of the search committee does not disclose whether besides the resume of the fourth respondent, the resume of any one else had been received or collected. what was the mode of search adopted by the search committee is not discernible either from the pleadings or from the minutes of the search committee. The minutes of the search committee does not disclose whether all the four candidates who were interviewed were found not qualified to be appointed. In the minutes of the selection committee it is not stated that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed experience/qualifications. The search committee has not in Ext.R3(C) minutes recorded that none of the applicants possess the qualifications or experience set out in Ext.P1 notification. All that the search committee has stated is that none of the four candidates are suitable for the post. That in my opinion was for the competent authority namely the Government to decide, having regard to the terms and stipulations in Ext.P1. The role of the search committee was only to assess whether the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification possess the prescribed experience and qualifications. That in my opinion was for the competent authority namely the Government to decide, having regard to the terms and stipulations in Ext.P1. The role of the search committee was only to assess whether the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification possess the prescribed experience and qualifications. It is on the basis that the candidates who have applied are unsuitable for the post of Director that the Search committee recommended the candidature of the fourth respondent. From the pleadings, the materials on record and the attendant circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the search committee is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be invalidated. If the search committee was of the opinion that those who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification did not posses the prescribed experience and qualifications, it ought to have invited fresh applications. Instead, the search committee obtained the resume of the fourth respondent. From the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1, 3 and 4 the conclusion is inescapable that no resume other than that of the fourth respondent had been obtained by the search committee. What was the mode of search is also left to conjecture. Further the search committee had no authority to waive the stipulation regarding upper age limit in Ext.P1 notification. The search committee could not have after issuing Ext.P1 notification inviting applications, recommended the name of the fourth respondent who did not apply for appointment. After considering the pleadings and the materials on record I am of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the search committee in selecting the fourth respondent was not transparent and fair. I accordingly hold that the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent as Director of the GIFT is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be invalidated. For the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P2 Government order dated 23.2.2012 whereby the fourth respondent was appointed as Director of the Gulathi Institute of Finance and Taxation. The parties shall bear their respective costs.