ORDER : The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for interview scheduled on 11.10.2023 for the post of Director (Operations), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) as arbitrary and illegal and to nullify the selection of 3 rd respondent vide Minute No.1 of the PESB Meeting No.33 of 2024 held on 21.05.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to entertain the petitioner to the said post. 2. Initially, the writ petition was filed challenging the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for an interview. Later, upon the selection of the third respondent to the post, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 seeking an amendment of prayer to nullify the selection of the third respondent. The said petition was ordered on 18.11.2024. 3. a) Averments in brief, in the affidavit, are that the petitioner joined RINL on 16.12.1987 as Management Trainee and worked in different departments i.e. Marketing, Research and Developments under Works Division, Vigilance Department, Works Contract dealing with contracts of Operation and Maintenance of VSP, Forged Wheel Plant, Lalganj and Projects Division handling all the operation and Maintenance of FWP and also Projects of RINL. b) While the petitioner worked at Research and Development, he was deputed to the Vigilance Department vide Office Order No.PI/ES- I/03/2007/1032 dated 31.10.2007 (Ex.P3) by maintaining a line of promotion in the parent department. The petitioner was reverted back to the Works Division and posted at Works Contracts vide Office Order No.18/HR/EE/TO-04/344 dated 29.03.2018 and the petitioner was relieved from the Vigilance Department vide Order Ref.No.Vig.B4A/1194 dated 28.07.2018 (Ex.P4). The petitioner was transferred to Forged Wheel Plant, Lalganj of RINL vide Office Order No.20/HR-EE/TO-19/e- dak, dated 30.05.2020 (Ex.P5). The petitioner was associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant from the posting at Research and Development in 2007. Thus, he had 16 years of experience in plant operations and maintenance. c) Be that as it may, the 1 st respondent issued an advertisement calling for applications to the post of Director (Operations) in RINL (Ex.P1). The petitioner applied for the same, however, his name was not shortlisted for an interview. The 4 th respondent, in fact, recommended the candidature of the petitioner after due certification to the post of Director (Projects). The petitioner applied for the same, however, his name was not shortlisted for an interview. The 4 th respondent, in fact, recommended the candidature of the petitioner after due certification to the post of Director (Projects). The petitioner was declared, as the senior most, among the internal candidates, who submitted applications to the post of Director (Operations). d) The 3 rd respondent wrongly claimed that he worked as Deputy General Manager at RINL in his application. The 1 st respondent failed to verify the same from the 4 th respondent before short-listing. The appointment of 3 rd respondent as the Director (Production) in M/s Braithwaite from 31.10.2018 to 27.05.2023 is tenure-based contract employment. The 3 rd respondent lost his contract post after completion of tenure. The 3 rd respondent claimed that he worked as an incharge Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Braithwaite from 28.05.2023 to 11.08.2023. The post of Executive Director (Operations) under the 3 rd respondent was created and advertised on 14.10.2023 for the 3 rd respondent’s continuation. An enquiry by the Vigilance, Railway Board is pending and thus, the selection of 3 rd respondent is contrary to the recruitment notification and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 4. The 3 rd respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking impleadment and the same as allowed on 22.04.2024. The 4 th respondent filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 seeking impleadment and the same as allowed on 18.11.2024. 5. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit along with a vacate stay petition before the amendment of prayer. It was contended, interalia, that by the time of Ex.P1 notification, the 3 rd respondent was working as Director (Production) M/s Braithwaite and Company. For more than 10 years from the date of application, he was working at senior levels in the areas of Production/Operations/Maintenance in reputed organizations in RINL and M/s Braithwaite. He had more than 5 years of integrated steel plant operations and maintenance experience from RINL out of the 10 years preceding application. Respondents 1 and 2 shortlisted 12 candidates and called the 3 rd respondent for an interview through proceedings dated 27.09.2023 and the name of the 3 rd respondent was figured at S.No.9. The 3 rd respondent participated in the interview held on 11.12.2023 through video conferencing. Respondents 1 and 2 shortlisted 12 candidates and called the 3 rd respondent for an interview through proceedings dated 27.09.2023 and the name of the 3 rd respondent was figured at S.No.9. The 3 rd respondent participated in the interview held on 11.12.2023 through video conferencing. Though the result of the interview ought to have been declared immediately, however, it was not declared due to the pendency of the writ petition. Later, the application was filed for impleadment. 6. After amending the prayer to nullify the appointment of 3 rd respondent, the 3 rd respondent filed another counter affidavit reiterating the averments in the original counter affidavit. In the additional counter affidavit, it was mentioned that 12 candidates were shortlisted by the 1 st respondent as per its guidelines. Out of 12 applicants, 6 were from internal applicants; 2 from sectoral applicants; 2 from external applicants and 2 from Central Government/Private Sector/State-PSEs. Since the 3 rd respondent satisfied the requisite qualification and performed well in the interview, he was selected. The post of 3 rd respondent at M/s Braithwaite is a tenure post for 5 years and not a contract post. No vigilance cases are pending against the 3 rd respondent and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The 1 st respondent filed a counter affidavit before the amendment of the prayer. After amending the prayer, no separate counter was filed by the 1 st respondent. 8. a) In the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, it was contended, interalia, that in the advertisement for the post of Director (Operations), RINL, one should have at least 5 out of 10 years of experience/exposure at senior level in the areas of production/operations/maintenance in the organizations of repute. The applicant with experience in Operations and Maintenance of integrated steel plants/projects will have an added advantage. The petitioner possessed 3 years of mandatory experience and hence, he was not shortlisted for interview. Though the petitioner indicated in his job profile regarding experience in Marketing/RNIL/Work Contracts/ Vigilance Department, however, the petitioner does not have the requisite mandatory experience as per the job description in the advertisement. As per the job description, the mandatory experience for the post is “the applicant should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance in an organization of repute”. As per the job description, the mandatory experience for the post is “the applicant should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance in an organization of repute”. After scrutinizing the application filled up by the petitioner including the remarks of the nodal officer, the same was forwarded. It was mentioned that the petitioner possessed 3 years mandatory experience. The nodal officer remarked that the petitioner had experience/exposure in the Work Contract/Forged Wheel Plant and Vigilance. b) The 1 st respondent, in fact, sought clarification from the 4 th respondent-RINL about the experience possessed by all the internal candidates including the petitioner. The 4 th respondent submitted the particulars, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had experience of 3 years in project areas during the last 10 years. A few other external candidates from the RINL were not shortlisted on similar grounds and there is no arbitrariness in short-listing of candidates for the post of Director (Operations). c) The petitioner is the senior most applicant in the external category of eligible criteria in terms of educational qualifications, however, he did not possess the requisite 5 years mandatory experience in the areas of production/operations/maintenance as per Clause-III (4) of the job description of advertisement for the post and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4 th respondent. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner worked in Marketing Department from 16.12.1987 to 21.04.2006; Works-R&D from 22.04.2006 to 04.11.2007; Vigilance Department from 05.11.2007 to 27.07.2018; Works Contracts Department from 28.07.2018 to 29.05.2020; Projects-HQ from 30.05.2020 to 17.06.2020; Projects – Forged Wheel Plant, Lalgunj from 18.06.2020 to 01.11.2022 and as Projects in charge from 02.11.2022 to till the date of application for the post of Director (Operations), RINL. b) The petitioner worked in the R & D Department for a period of around 1½ years. LoP was maintained in the parent department of R & D during his posting in the Vigilance department. The Vigilance Department is a separate department headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the functions carried out by the Vigilance Department are detailed in the Vigilance Manual. The functions to be performed by the Vigilance department are specific in nature. LoP was maintained in the parent department of R & D during his posting in the Vigilance department. The Vigilance Department is a separate department headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the functions carried out by the Vigilance Department are detailed in the Vigilance Manual. The functions to be performed by the Vigilance department are specific in nature. c) The petitioner is the senior most in the grade amongst the internal candidates, who applied for the post of Director (Operations). Vide circular dated 18.11.2019, the designations of the executives were rationalized with the approval of RINL’s Board. Accordingly, the designation of executive in E-6 Grade was renamed from Assistant General Manager to Deputy General Manager with effect from 08.11.2019 without change in the grade and pay scale. The application of the 3 rd respondent for the position of Director, RINL was not rooted through RINL and hence, the RINL had no occasion to verify the application of the 3 rd respondent. 10. Rejoinder, reply affidavit and surrejoinder affidavits were filed by the petitioner elaborating the contents in the writ affidavit and also in respect of the experience of the unofficial respondent. It was pleaded that the 1 st respondent shortlisted one Sri Gowtham, General Manager (Raw Material) and Sri P.Srinivasulu, General Manager (RM &HP), without short-listing the petitioner, though he is eligible. A different set of approaches was adopted in respect of notification for the post of Director (in charge), Bokaro Steel Plant and Director (in charge) Rourkela Steel Plant. It was further pleaded about 3 rd respondent’s ineligibility for selection. 11. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2, Smt.T.V.Sreedevi, learned counsel for 3 rd respondent and Sri Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for 4 th respondent. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments in the affidavit and rejoinders would further contend that the petitioner satisfied requisite experience as per Clause-III (4) of the job description. In counting, 5 years out of 10 years, the respondents failed to observe that the petitioner’s line of promotion was continued in R&D, though the petitioner was deputed to vigilance. Despite forwarding the application by CMD, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In counting, 5 years out of 10 years, the respondents failed to observe that the petitioner’s line of promotion was continued in R&D, though the petitioner was deputed to vigilance. Despite forwarding the application by CMD, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In the notification, Clause-III (4) does not contain the word “last” and the experience of the petitioner in the Vigilance should have been taken into consideration. The 3 rd respondent’s appointment in M/s Braithwaite for five years is on contract and hence, he cannot be treated as a regular employee and hence, he is not eligible. Though the petitioner is eligible, he was not considered, however, 3 rd respondent's ineligibility was considered. The post of Assistant General Manager was re-designated as Deputy General Manager, after two years of relieving of 3 rd respondent. The 1 st respondent did not call for any particulars from RINL regarding the 3 rd respondent’s experience. 13. Learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and respondents 3 & 4 would submit that having pleaded bias, the petitioner failed to implead any authority as a party respondent to the writ petition. Initially, the writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents in not short-listing the petitioner for the interview and later, an amendment was made to the prayer. The petitioner failed to fulfil the specific criteria. After following the procedure, the 3 rd respondent was selected. The 3 rd respondent made an application to the post on 01.06.2023 and the interview was conducted on 11.10.2023. The 3 rd respondent’s appointment at M/s Braithwaite is not a contract and it is a tenure post for 5 years. In fact, the 3 rd respondent was appointed at M/s Braithwaite in pursuance of the advertisement and the selection made by 1 st respondent. 14. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether non-short listing the name of the petitioner for the interview to the post of Director (Operations) RINL in pursuance of advertisement (Ex.P1) issued by 1 st respondent, is illegal and arbitrary? 2) Whether the selection of the 3 rd respondent by the 1 st respondent to the post of Director (Operations), RINL needs to be nullified? 15. Since the relevant facts are narrated supra, to avoid repetition, the same are not reiterated. 16. 2) Whether the selection of the 3 rd respondent by the 1 st respondent to the post of Director (Operations), RINL needs to be nullified? 15. Since the relevant facts are narrated supra, to avoid repetition, the same are not reiterated. 16. Ex.P1 is the advertisement issued by the 1 st respondent calling for applications to the post of Director (Operations), RINL. Clause III prescribes the eligibility. Clause-III (2) prescribes employment status and Clause-III (4) prescribes experience. The employment status prescribed reads thus: “The applicant must, on the date of application, as well as on the date of interview, be employed in a regular capacity – and not in a contractual/ad- hoc capacity – in one of the following:- (a) Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) (including a full-time functional Director in the Board of a CPSE); 17. Regarding the experience, in the notification, it was mentioned as follows: “The applicant should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance in an organization of repute. Applicants with experience in operation and maintenance of integrated steel plants/projects will have added advantage.” 18. Ex.P2 is the application made by the petitioner to the post. In Page-18 of the papers annexed to the writ affidavit, the petitioner mentioned the experience in different departments. The 1 st respondent requested the RINL to produce the duties and responsibilities of all applicants at various positions in the company during the last 10 years to ascertain the experience requirement for the post of Director (Operations), RINL vis-à-vis experience filled up by the candidates (including the petitioner). The information was forwarded from RINL to the 1 st respondent. No doubt, the petitioner stood at serial No.1 in the list forwarded. Ex.P10, the petitioner for the post of the Director (Operations), wherein in the remarks column regarding experience, it was mentioned as follows: “He is having experience/exposure of 5 years 2 months in Vigilance; 1 year 10 months in Work Contracts and 3 years in Projects area during last 10 years” 19. As per the notification, one should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance. Ex.P10, the application relating to the petitioner gains significance in adjudicating the issue. It discerns that the petitioner has fulfilled eligible criteria regarding age, qualification and pay scales. As per the notification, one should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance. Ex.P10, the application relating to the petitioner gains significance in adjudicating the issue. It discerns that the petitioner has fulfilled eligible criteria regarding age, qualification and pay scales. However, regarding experience, he has experience/exposure in Vigilance/Works Contract/Project Areas including FWP of 3 years during the last 10 years. In Ex.P10, it was further mentioned that as per Clause No.3.7 of the Guidelines on the subject matter, in exceptional cases and in the interest of the Company, applications in relaxation of any of these Rules may be forwarded. In the proposal, it was mentioned as follows: “In view of the position brought out above, the proposal for forwarding the application of Dr.V.R.Bapa Rao, Chief General Manager (Proj), I/c, E.No.104401 for the post of Director (Operations), RINL to PESB is put up for kind consideration and approval of CMD with relaxation in experience criteria as mentioned in Para-6. On approval, the application will be forwarded to PESB in online mode with the comments of “The Applicant has experience/exposure in Works Contracts; Forged Wheel Plant and Vigilance Department for the last 10 years”. 20. On page No.70 of the material papers filed along with an amended copy of the writ affidavit, the email forwarded discloses that the applications of the petitioner along with 4 others were forwarded, even though none of the 5 candidates fulfilled the experience criteria, with the approval of CMD. Thus, a perusal of Ex.P10 filed by the petitioner itself manifests that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of 5 years out of 10 years of experience as per Clause-III (4) of the job description. 21. The 1 st respondent prescribed eligibility to select the candidate for the post of Director (Operations). An ineligible candidate i.e. without fulfilling all the requisite qualifications prescribed, cannot contend that he is suitable for the post and hence, he should be called for an interview. 22. Whether the experience in Vigilance is to be reckoned with that of experience in Production/Operations/Maintenance, it is for the 1 st respondent to resolve that issue. The 1 st respondent being the recruitment agency detailed in the advertisement that one should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance. 22. Whether the experience in Vigilance is to be reckoned with that of experience in Production/Operations/Maintenance, it is for the 1 st respondent to resolve that issue. The 1 st respondent being the recruitment agency detailed in the advertisement that one should have at least five out of ten years of experience/exposure at a senior level in areas of production/operation/maintenance. The contention of learned senior counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner worked in Vigilance, his line of promotion was maintained in R&D department and hence, the experience of the petitioner must have been be reckoned, this Court is not persuaded by the said the submission and it falls to ground. The 1 st respondent, the recruitment agency, considered all these aspects and did not shortlist the name of the petitioner for the interview. 23. The Apex Court judgment cited by the learned senior counsel in Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184], regarding the change of Rules after the game started, has no application to the facts of this case. In the case at hand, the Rules have not been changed. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “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”. 24. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, no Rules were changed after the advertisement. 25. The other contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the 3 rd respondent is not eligible and hence, his selection is liable to be set aside, this Court does not find any merit in the said contention, in the absence of any material on record that the appointment of the 3 rd respondent as Director (Production), M/s Braithwaite is on a contract basis. The 1 st respondent shortlisted the candidates, those who had fulfilled the requisite qualifications including experience etc., as per the notification and finally selected the 3 rd respondent. The 1 st respondent shortlisted the candidates, those who had fulfilled the requisite qualifications including experience etc., as per the notification and finally selected the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent does not have experience and is not qualified is a seriously disputed question of fact. In the absence of any undisputed material, this Court normally shall not adjudicate such issues. 26. It is a settled principle of law that the Court while exercising the jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India, normally shall not adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 27. The reliance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the guidelines regarding Board Level Appointments in Central Public Sector Enterprise, in Chapter-4, which speaks about the tenure of Board Level Appointments in CPSEs and extension in Tenure, will not improve the case of the petitioner in a way. 28. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that one should be employed in a regular capacity and not in a contractual/ad-hoc capacity. The 3 rd respondent while working in RINL, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the 1 st respondent, applied and got selected for the post of Director (Production) in M/s Braithwaite and the tenure of that post is 5 years. The appointment of 3 rd respondent in M/s Braithwaite vide No.2017/E(O)II/40/4 dated 05.10.2018 reads as follows: “The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has approved the appointment of Shri Salim G Purushothaman, AGM, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., (RINL) to the post of Director (Production), Braithwaite & Company Ltd., (BCL), in the scale of pay of Rs.65,000-75,000/- (IDA Scale – pre- revised) for a period of five years from the date of his assumption of charge of the post or till the date of superannuation or until further orders whichever is the earliest. The date of assumption of charge by the officer may please be advised.” 29. Thus, the proceedings issued by the Under Secretary (Deputation) of, the Railway Board did not indicate that the appointment of the petitioner as Director (Production) is on contract or ad-hoc. The 3 rd respondent is holding the post on the date of application as well as on the date of the interview. The 3 rd respondent applied on 01.06.2023 and the interview was conducted on 11.10.2023. The 3 rd respondent is holding the post on the date of application as well as on the date of the interview. The 3 rd respondent applied on 01.06.2023 and the interview was conducted on 11.10.2023. The 1 st respondent, after considering, all the facets selected the 3 rd respondent to the post of Director (Operations), RINL and hence it cannot be nullified. 30. Learned senior counsel by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and others Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi, [ (1990) 3 SCC 655 ], would contend that since the 3rd respondent does not have requisite qualifications and it amounts to fraud, has no application to the facts of this case. 31. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. However, no costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.