JUDGMENT : (Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) 1. The petitioners, by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience) dated 3rd February, 2017, whereby Original Application no.267 of 2013 came to be allowed with direction to the petitioners that if recommended candidate Shri More Rajesh Sudhakar (deceased) was appointed and pursuant to the same, had he reported for duty, then the respondents (present petitioners), on appointing the applicant to the post of Catering Supervisor shall fix his pay notionally with effect the date on which Shri More Rajesh Sudhakar reported for duty, but with no arrears of pay. 2. Brief facts of the case are here as under : 2.1 The respondent was a candidate for the post of Catering Supervisor pursuant to the Advertisement No.SAC:02/2012. According to the case of the respondent, he possessed all the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, he was permitted to participate in the written examination and he was successful and declared qualified for interview. According to him, he attended the interview and performed well and anxiously waiting that he would be selected and appointed to the post of Catering Supervisor pursuant to the said advertisement. 2.2 Since the applicant did not get any information as to his selection, he sought for certain information to know about the status of the selection process, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2.3 It is the case of the respondent that by communication dated 1st May, 2013, he was informed that his name was shown at Sr. no.2 at waiting list. Through the information furnished, the respondent learnt that a candidate who secured lower marks, both in the written examination and the total marks (in the written examination and interview), than him was selected. Therefore, he preferred representation dated 13th May, 2013, which was responded by the respondents through communication dated 24th July, 2013 whereby, it was informed that the written test held on 18th January, 2013 for the post of Catering Supervisor was of qualifying in nature only and the selection was based on the performance in the interview by those candidates, who qualified in the written test held for the purpose. Therefore, he had preferred the aforesaid original application before the Tribunal. Therefore, he had preferred the aforesaid original application before the Tribunal. 2.4 After hearing the parties and examining the material placed before it, the Tribunal allowed the original application, which led petitioners to prefer the present petition. 3. Heard Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners as also Mr. Anand Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent. 4. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that selection list prepared by the authority on the basis of performance in the interview as written examination conducted of all the candidates was in the nature of shortlisting of the candidates to be called for personal interview. He has further submitted that the only criteria for selection of the candidate was based upon the performance in the interview and not the written examination. According to his submission, the written examination was, as replied by the petitioners to the respondent pursuant to his representation, was qualifying in nature to shortlist the candidates for the purpose of interview. He has further submitted that in exercise of the powers vested with the Directors of the ISRO Centres, Space Application Center (ISRO), Ahmedabad had issued an advertisement in question dated 25th August, 2012 in inviting online applications for Group-B posts (Technical Assistant, Library Assistant and Catering Supervisor), in which post Code no.3 was for fillingup one post of Catering Supervisor reserved for OBC in the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade pay of Rs.4200/-. Drawing attention of the Court to the general conditions/instructions of the advertisement, it is submitted that only shortlisted candidates will be called for written test/interview as the case may be. The candidates called for written test/interview will have the option to answer the questions in Hindi also. Relying on that clause-10, it is submitted that the written examination conducted for the post of Catering Supervisor was with a view to shortlist the candidates and selection was to be made based on the performance of the candidates in the interview. Therefore, he has submitted that selection list prepared placing Mr. More as selected candidate and placed respondent - applicant at wait list no.2 based on the performance in the interview, was proper and no fault can be found with the same. Therefore, he has submitted that selection list prepared placing Mr. More as selected candidate and placed respondent - applicant at wait list no.2 based on the performance in the interview, was proper and no fault can be found with the same. 4.1 He has further submitted that out of total 27 candidates, 23 candidates appeared for written examination and out of those 23 candidates, 14 candidates were qualified in written test and they were called for the purpose of interview. Therefore, according to his submission, only and only based on performance at the interview, selection list was prepared which is in accordance with the rules and general terms and conditions of the advertisement itself. 4.2 He has further submitted that despite in the written reply, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to nonjoinder of selected candidate to the original proceedings as any order passed allowing the application, that too, without hearing the affected person, original application should have been rejected on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary party without entering into the merits of the case. 4.3 It is further submitted that according to the respondent herein himself, he being qualified for interview after clearing written examination, the purpose for conducting written examination is clear to the mind of the respondent also and therefore, he could not object to the same if selection list is prepared based on performance in the oral interview. He has further submitted that the marks scored by the persons in written test are irrelevant so long as they get the qualifying marks of 40 in it. Persons who scored 40 marks were held to be qualified for the purpose of interview and based on the performance in the interview, the selection list was prepared. 4.4 He has further submitted that any document received by the respondent herein under an RTI application in connection with the written examination, he can not prepare the selection list based on the performance of written test as also the interview. According to the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners, written test was only a screening test and the selection was done on the basis of marks obtained in an interview. It is further asserted that all the candidates were well aware about the selection procedure well in advance. According to the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners, written test was only a screening test and the selection was done on the basis of marks obtained in an interview. It is further asserted that all the candidates were well aware about the selection procedure well in advance. He has further submitted that it was nowhere declared by the petitioners that the score of written examination will be added to prepare the final selection merit list. It is further submitted that the respondent has not produced any proof wherein, it is written by the petitioners that the marks scored in the written examination will be added in preparation of final selection merit list. According to the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners, the respondent is only resting on the fact that he performed the best in the written examination. The comparative table prepared by the respondent herein is based on his presumptions for his own convenience and not as per the prescribed procedure. 4.5 It is further submitted that once the respondent participated in the selection process, he can not now allege any irregularity or illegality for not being selected. 4.6 According to his further submission, even if in the minutes of selection committee, it is written that “taking into consideration all the relevant factors with regard to the performance in the written test and personal interview, the committee recommends that the following candidate(s) is/are suitable for appointment in order of merit as Catering Supervisor (reserved for OBC)”. According to the learned advocate for the petitioners, it does not mean that the marks in the written examination will be added for preparation of final selection merit list. 4.7 On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioners submit that the petition be allowed. 5. As against that, Mr. Anand Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent vehemently submitted that if the argument of learned advocate for the petitioners is accepted that the written test was only for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for the purpose of interview and selection to be made solely based on performance in the interview, it would be arbitrary and left to the discretion of the members of the Selection Committee to give marks as per their wisdom. According to his submission, there cannot be any selection based on solely the performance in an interview of any post as it will lead to arbitrariness by the Selection Committee. 5.1 He has further submitted that it is good that under Right to Information Act, information in relation to recruitment is made available or else Appointing Authority may act arbitrarily as done in the present case. Drawing the attention of the Court to the minutes of meeting drawn by the Selection Committee consisted of 9 members, who are named by the petitioners in the additional affidavit at page no.141, it consists of total 7 persons from the Recruiting Agency itself and 1 member is co-opted whereas 1 member is an external expert. Based on constitution of Committee, it is submitted that those majority members of the Committee, who are officials of the petitioners, they would not have written in the minutes of the Selection Committee that taking into consideration all the relevant factors with regard to the performance in the written test (emphasis by us) and personal interview, the Committee recommends that the following candidate(s) is/are suitable for appointment in order of merit as Catering Supervisor (reserved for OBC). 5.2 Mr. Anand Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the information supplied, though it is limited for the selected candidate as also wait listed candidates, it reflects that if selection list is prepared based on the performance in the written test as also interview, the respondent would be at Sr. No.1 instead of Mr. More Rajesh Sudhakar, who is shown to be selected. Therefore, he has submitted that if the information under the Right to Information Act would not have been available, even right of meritorious candidate would have been defeated by the petitioners under the guise of so-called transparency. 5.3 Drawing attention of the Court to the advertisement itself, which contains general conditions/instructions at Clause-10, it is submitted that if it is to be interpreted as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners, then it is unknown what procedure for shortlisting of candidates either for written test/interview provided therein. Therefore, he has submitted that the contention raised that the written test was only for the purpose of elimination falls flat as no selection can be permitted solely based on performance in the interview as it may lead to arbitrariness by the Selection Committee itself. Therefore, he has submitted that the contention raised that the written test was only for the purpose of elimination falls flat as no selection can be permitted solely based on performance in the interview as it may lead to arbitrariness by the Selection Committee itself. 5.4 On the aforesaid submissions, he has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application preferred by the respondent before the Tribunal and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court and petition is require to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and going through the petition as also annexures along with the documents and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and the set of true copied documents produced by the learned advocate for the respondent, obtained from the Tribunal in the form of Paperbook, it emerges that it is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the written examination of 27 candidates, who have applied, out of which 23 applications were approved and they were called for the purpose of written test and only 14 qualified, who crossed the benchmark of 40 marks and they were shortlisted for the purpose of interview. 7. The contention on behalf of the petitioners that conducting written test was for the purpose of elimination/shortlisting of candidates for the purpose of interview cannot be accepted for the reason that though they may conduct the same for screening or even shortlisting, if for one post, there are more than 10 candidates shortlisted at a particular benchmark may be permissible. However, the selection process to be undertaken solely based on interview, may be after shortlisted candidate by way of written test, may lead to arbitrariness by the Selection Committee. Even general terms and conditions in the advertisement itself nowhere it is mentioned that the written test to be conducted solely for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates. If only 1 candidate was to be selected solely based on the performance in the interview, the candidates were not in multiple of hundreds so that shortlisting is required. It could have been avoided and all the 27 candidates could have been interviewed by the Selection Committee. However, the socalled exercise of shortlisting, it is not even less than one half. It could have been avoided and all the 27 candidates could have been interviewed by the Selection Committee. However, the socalled exercise of shortlisting, it is not even less than one half. The process of shortlisting, that too, by conducting written test is with a view to see that number of persons to be interviewed are less when there are more persons, who have applied in hundreds - thousands, so that out of the shortlisted candidates best candidate suitable for the post could be selected by way of interview. As against the persons to be interviewed 14 in number, in all, there were 9 members in an Interview Committee, which is more than 50% of the total candidates to be interviewed. Therefore, the contention that the written test was to be conducted only for the purpose of shortlisting, which was never notified to the candidates, appears to be merely an eyewash. At the same time, out of total 9 members of Selection Committee, 7 members are of the department itself. They must be knowing the Recruitment Rules as also the process for the recruitment. Still however, they have signed minutes of selection meeting and preparation of a select list based on overall performance in the interview alone, but taking into consideration all the relevant factors with regard to the performance in the written test and personal interview, the Committee recommends list of candidates in order of merit as Catering Supervisor, but that list puts at the top a candidate based on the performance only in an interview. If at all selection list is to be prepared based on performance in the written test and personal interview then, marks obtained in the written test as also interview have to be considered by the Committee, which they considered according to their minutes of meeting, but they prepared selection list based solely on the performance in the interview despite it is prepared considering the performance in the written test as also the interview. 8. For the post of Catering Supervisor as we are told, there are no Recruitment Rules framed considering the secrecy of the institution, however, if any recruitment process is undertaken, they must be clear in their mind at the time of advertisement itself for the process of selecting a candidate and it must be declared and made known to all. 8. For the post of Catering Supervisor as we are told, there are no Recruitment Rules framed considering the secrecy of the institution, however, if any recruitment process is undertaken, they must be clear in their mind at the time of advertisement itself for the process of selecting a candidate and it must be declared and made known to all. If the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners to the effect that condition no.10 of the advertisement provides that shortlisted candidates will be called for written test/interview, then what is the process prior thereto undertaken by the authority for the purpose of shortlisting is missing in the present case. The shortlisting as coming-out from the condition no.10 is for the purpose of either written test or interview. Therefore, it cannot be successfully argued that the written test conducted in this case was for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates for the purpose of interview. 9. After going through the decision by the Tribunal, which considers Supreme Court decisions, we find no error in it so as to interfere with the same and therefore, we hereby confirm the order passed by the Tribunal including the direction issued in para-16 thereof. 10. Hence, this petition sans merit and it is hereby rejected with no order as to costs.