Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 773 (TS)

V. Srinivas v. Union of India

2024-09-20

PULLA KARTHIK

body2024
ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: a) Declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 to 4 in not carrying out recruitment to the post of Director (Personnel) for Respondent No. 5 strictly in terms of the advertisement bearing Advt. No. 101/2022 dt. 30.08.2022 by short listing candidates as per the eligibility criteria set out therein and conducting selection meeting for them and, instead, retaining the earlier list of shortlisted candidates dt. 30.06.2023 and their interview results intact and calling the Petitioner alone to appear for a selection meeting on 27.02.2024 vide OM No.2/16/2023-PESB dt. 23.02.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the order dt. 21.12.2023 in W.P. No. 18698 of 2023 and order dt. 04.01.2024 in W.A. No. 8 of 2024 of this Hon’ble Court’ b) declaring the OM No.2/16/2023-PESB dt. 23.02.2024 issued by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and c) consequently, direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to carry out recruitment to the post of Director (Personnel) for Respondent No. 5 strictly as per the advertisement bearing Advt. No. 101/2022 dt. 30.08.2022 by shortlisting candidates afresh as per the eligibility criteria set out therein, by including the Petitioner, and conducting selection meeting for all of them and set aside the OM No.2/16/2023-PESB dt. 23.02.2024 issued by the Respondents No.2 to 4…” 2. Heard Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 9. Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Advocate General, representing Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as a General Manager (Personnel) in respondent No.5 Organization which is a Central Public Sector Enterprise with its headquarters located in Hyderabad. In order to advise respondent No.1 on appointments to top managerial positions and to evolve the managerial policy of Central Public Sector Enterprises, respondent No.1 has constituted respondent No.2. In order to advise respondent No.1 on appointments to top managerial positions and to evolve the managerial policy of Central Public Sector Enterprises, respondent No.1 has constituted respondent No.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 published a notification vide Advt.No.101/2022 dated 30.08.2022 inviting applications from all the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Director (Personnel) in respondent No.5 Organization. In response, since the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible, he applied for the said post online on 15.03.2023 and his application was forwarded to respondent No.2 on 16.03.2023. According to the guidelines issued by respondent No.1, a total of twelve applicants shall be shortlisted, six of whom will be from the same Central Public Sector Enterprise or its subsidiaries. Thereafter, respondent No.2 is required to conduct a selection meeting in consultation with the Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department. In the present case, an interview of the shortlisted applicants has to be conducted during the selection process and one name has to be sent to the concerned Ministry for its consideration, and the petitioner was excitedly anticipating the outcome, since he was confident that he would be shortlisted and that he would be called for the selection meeting. While the things stood thus, on 11.07.2023, the petitioner learned through his colleagues that some of the applicants within respondent No.5 Organization had received a letter from respondent No.2 on 30.06.2023 intimating them about the upcoming selection meeting. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the letter dated 30.06.2023 which included the names of the twelve applicants shortlisted for selection meeting, did not include the name of the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the candidates at Sl.Nos.1 to 6 were all applicants from respondent No.5 Organization, and the candidates at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, do not even meet the experience requirement as stated at Paragraph 4 of the advertisement dated 30.08.2022. As on the date of vacancy i.e., 01.08.2020, none of them had ever done any work related to Human Resource/Personnel Management/Industrial Relations departments in respondent No.5 Organization and its various units. All of them work in different departments of respondent No.5 Organization and have no connection with the post in question as they all are from backgrounds related to Engineering, Operations, Marketing and Mining. All of them work in different departments of respondent No.5 Organization and have no connection with the post in question as they all are from backgrounds related to Engineering, Operations, Marketing and Mining. On the other hand, the petitioner has exclusively worked in Human Resource/Personnel Management/Industrial Relations Departments throughout his career. Further, while the petitioner met the requisite qualifications, respondent Nos.6 to 8 do not possess the same. As such, respondent No.2 ought to have shortlisted the petitioner. However, for the reasons best known to respondent No.2, the petitioner was not shortlisted, while respondent Nos.6 to 8 were shortlisted. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.18698 of 2023 before this Court challenging the letter dated 30.06.2023, wherein, this Court was pleased to grant an interim order on 14.07.2023 restraining respondent Nos.2 to 4 from taking any further steps pursuant to the letter dated 30.06.2023. However, in defiance of the above orders, respondent No.2 went ahead with the selection meeting on 14.07.2023 interviewing all the twelve candidates whose names were listed in the letter dated 30.06.2023. Thereafter, this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition in part vide order dated 21.12.2023 setting aside the interviews held on 14.07.2023, with a further direction to the respondents to publish a fresh advertisement for the post of Director (Personnel) with all necessary details, and to proceed with the selection process in compliance with the guidelines. 5. Aggrieved by the latter portion of the order dated 21.12.2023 in W.P.No.18689 of 2023, the petitioner filed W.A.No.8 of 2024 seeking to set aside the direction of reissuance of the advertisement, and to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh list of candidates for appearing in the selection meeting in terms of the experience criteria notified in the advertisement dated 30.08.2022, duly including the petitioner’s name. The aforementioned writ appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.01.2024 directing the respondents to complete the selection process duly taking the advertisement dated 30.08.2022 to its logical conclusion. As such, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are required to shortlist the candidates based on the criteria mentioned in the advertisement and recommend one candidate for appointment by conducting selection meetings for each of the shortlisted candidates. As such, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are required to shortlist the candidates based on the criteria mentioned in the advertisement and recommend one candidate for appointment by conducting selection meetings for each of the shortlisted candidates. While so, on 23.02.2024, respondent No.4 issued an office memorandum intimating respondent Nos.5 and 9 that a selection meeting for the petitioner will be held on 27.02.2024 at 05:00 PM, and that he is required to send his P.P.T. before 05:00 PM on 24.02.2024. A copy of the same was emailed to the petitioner at 04:42 PM on 23.02.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.5 sent a letter to the petitioner by email at 06:53 PM on 23.02.2024 intimating about the office memorandum, and inquired the petitioner’s willingness to participate in the selection meeting scheduled to be conducted on 27.02.2024, and the said decision of the respondents in the aforesaid Office Memorandum is illegal and directly contrary to the judgment in W.A.No.8 of 2024 dated 04.01.2024 as well as the order dated 21.12.2023 in W.P.No.18698 of 2023. Since the interviews in the earlier selection were already set aside by this Court, the entire process has to be redone. Moreover, as per the judgment of the Division Bench, respondent Nos.2 to 4 must conduct the recruitment in accordance with the advertisement dated 30.08.2022. Further, as observed in the order of the learned Single Judge, the previous shortlist dated 30.06.2023 was not prepared in accordance with the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement dated 30.08.2022. As such, in order to carry out the recruitment as per the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are required to prepare a fresh shortlist as per the criteria in the advertisement. Thereafter, the candidates are required to be called for a selection meeting afresh. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have given a complete go by to these steps and have called the petitioner alone for the selection meeting on 27.02.2024. In other words, the earlier illegal shortlist of candidates as well as their illegal interviews were kept intact, in direction contravention of the orders of this Court. As such, this action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is illegal and arbitrary. 6. In other words, the earlier illegal shortlist of candidates as well as their illegal interviews were kept intact, in direction contravention of the orders of this Court. As such, this action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is illegal and arbitrary. 6. It is further submitted that as per Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines issued by respondent No.2, all the interviews shall be conducted on the same day, and the results shall be published on the website on the very same day. Thus, by separating out the petitioner individually for a selection meeting, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are violating their own guidelines. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have turned a blind eye to the orders of this Court by retaining the earlier shortlist and the interview results, and the manner in which the petitioner’s selection meeting is scheduled without sufficient notice indicates that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are bent upon going ahead with the result of the earlier illegal shortlist and interviews. Further, setting up a selection meeting for the petitioner is merely an eye wash to make it look as if they are complying with the orders of this Court. As such, the action of the respondents is not in compliance with the orders of this Court, rather, in clear contravention of the same. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the present writ petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. The Station House Officer, Madhapur P.S. Hyderabad and others, (2016) 2 ALT 164 (DB). 7. Per contra, Sri Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of India on behalf of the respondents contends that the present writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law as the petitioner is challenging the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not carrying out the recruitment to the post of Director (Personnel) in respondent No.5 Organization in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in advertisement dated 30.08.2022 and retaining the earlier list of shortlisted candidates, and calling the petitioner alone for interview as illegal and contrary to the judgment dated 04.01.2024 in W.A.No.8 of 2024 and also the order dated 21.12.2023 in W.P.No.18698 of 2023. Further, this Court, after a detailed hearing, partly allowed W.P.No.18698 of 2023 on 21.12.2023 setting aside the interviews conducted on 14.07.2023, and further directed the respondents to reissue the advertisement to the post of Director (Personnel) in respondent No.5 Organization duly mentioning all the necessary details in the advertisement. Having been dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner carried the matter to the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A.No.8 of 2024. After a thorough hearing of the matter, while setting aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding reissuance of the advertisement, the Division Bench directed the respondents to complete the selection process by taking the advertisement dated 30.08.2022 to its logical conclusion by conducting recruitment to the post of Director (Personnel) and by considering the case of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.3 has issued an Office Memorandum No.2/16/2023-PESB dated 23.02.2024 to the petitioner instructing him to appear before the selection Board on 27.02.2024 for selection interview and to submit his power point presentation for the same. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed with untenable grounds based on the misinterpretation of the earlier orders passed by this Court. 8. It is further submitted that in compliance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner was intimated to appear before the selection Board for selection meting and to submit his power point prostration for the same. As such, the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed. Despite the same, the petitioner is protracting the litigation without there being any valid reasons. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is further submitted that in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench, respondent No.3 has issued the Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2024 to the petitioner notifying him to appear before the selection Board for interview. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, the respondents must carry out the recruitment process as per the advertisement dated 30.08.2022 by drawing a fresh shortlist of candidates, is untenable and without merit. Neither the Division Bench nor the learned Single Judge had expressed their opinion on the shortlist of the candidates. Neither the Division Bench nor the learned Single Judge had expressed their opinion on the shortlist of the candidates. The Division Bench only directed to conclude the selection process by considering the candidature of the petitioner and the said judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that a fresh short list has to be drawn as per the orders of this Court is also untenable. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner is qualified eligible for the post of Director (Personnel), NMDC under Category I, in accordance with the job description and the guidelines dated 04.02.2022. However, he is not in the zone of consideration for final short listing and the officers from the same Category I, seniors to the petitioner, were shortlisted for the selection meeting on 14.07.2023. However, in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner has been called for the interview. It is further submitted that it is well settled law that the scope of judicial review is very limited in matters or decisions taken by expert bodies. The respondents rely on various internal guidelines such as the number of candidates to be shortlisted, seniority criteria, number of attempts allowed to an applicant in a calendar year to be included in the final short, etc. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge in it order dated 21.12.2023, quashed only the interviews conducted on 14.07.2023 and not the shortlist of candidates prepared by the respondents. However, in strict compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.01.2024 in W.A.No.8 of 2024, the respondents have called the petitioner to appear in the selection meeting on 27.02.2024. Therefore, there are no merits in the present writ petition and it is prayed to dismiss the same. 11. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 12. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner approached this Court earlier challenging the list of individual shortlisted for appearing in the selection meeting issued in letter bearing No.7/27/2022-PESB dated 30.06.2023, and filed W.P.No.18698 of 2023, and the said writ petition was partly allowed vide order dated 21.12.2023, setting aside the interviews conducted on 14.07.2023 and the learned Single Judge further directed the respondents to reissue the advertisement for the post of Director (Personnel). The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “18. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the interviews conducted on 14.07.2023 and direct the respondents to re-issue the advertisement for the post of Director (Personnel) giving all the necessary details in the advertisement and thereafter, proceed with the selection process for the post of Director (Personnel) in accordance with such guidelines. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 13. Aggrieved by the above order to the extent of reissuance of the advertisement for the post of Director (Personnel), the petitioner preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court vide W.A.No.8 of 2024. The said writ appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 04.01.2024 and the operative portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that the present Writ Appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondents to complete the process of selection by taking the advertisement, dated 30.08.2022, to its logical conclusion by conducting recruitment to the post of Director (Personnel) and by considering the case of the appellant also, if he is otherwise eligible, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the direction given by the learned Single Judge that the respondent shall re-issue the advertisement for the post of Director (Personnel) is set aside, as admittedly, the appellant has not sought for such a direction and such a direction is beyond the scope of the Writ Petition. 7. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 14. As can be seen from the above, neither the Division Bench nor the learned Single Judge, in their respective decisions, articulated any opinion on the shortlist of candidates dated 30.06.2023. As such, the contentions of the petitioner that the said shortlist of candidates is illegal and that the respondents should prepare a fresh shortlist of candidates to be called for the selection meeting cannot be countenanced. As such, the contentions of the petitioner that the said shortlist of candidates is illegal and that the respondents should prepare a fresh shortlist of candidates to be called for the selection meeting cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, vide aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench, the respondents were merely directed to finalize the selection process by taking the advertisement dated 30.08.2022 to its logical end, duly taking into consideration the candidature of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible. The material on record makes it unequivocally evident that, in compliance of the above direction, the respondents have issued the impugned Office Memorandum No.2/16/2023-PESB dated 23.04.2024 stating that the petitioner may attend the selection meeting for the post of Director (Personnel) scheduled on 27.02.2024 at 05:00 PM. The said O.M. was officially communicated to the petitioner via email on 23.02.2024 at 05:53 PM and he was called for the interview before the selection meeting committee on 27.02.2024 at 05:00 PM, by way of another mail at 06:53 PM. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents in issuing the call letter only to the petitioner in terms of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 04.01.2024 in W.A.No.8 of 2024. As such, the present writ petition is devoid of any merits and therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, since the respondents have called-off the interview that was supposed to be conducted on 27.02.2024 owing to the filing of present writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondents to schedule an interview for the petitioner duly following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.01.2024 in W.A.No.8 of 2024. 16. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.