IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26116 of 1999 Between: Dr.K.Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o. Late K.Narsimha Murthy, Agriculture Institute, A.G.G.R.Agriculture University, Rajendranagar , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Agricultural Scientists, Recuritment Board , Krishna Anusadhana Road, New Delhi. 2 The Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan , New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ , Order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.34(Sr.sci.)/1/90-Per.II Dt: 4-9-1997 of the Secretary Indian Council of Agricultural Research (R2) as being arbitrary , illegal , Un-Constitutional , null and void and consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner deemed to have been selected to the post of Senior Scientist in view of his qualifications/experience and more meritorious for the post advertised by the 1st respondent , in view of crossing maximum prescribed age limit , blocking his future prospects , with all consequential benefits by setting aside the Judgment Dt: 27-10-1999 in O.A.No.1535/1997 of the Central .Adm.Tribunal , Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI GUMMALA.VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26116 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)). The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order No.34 (Sr.Sci)1/90-Per.II dated 04.09.1997 of the Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as deemed to have been selected to the post of Senior Scientist and award all consequential benefits by setting aside the judgment passed in O.A.No.1535 of 1997 dated 27.10.1999 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2. The petitioner herein applied for the post of Senior Scientists when the first respondent issued advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates, and the notified posts were eight, out of which 5 posts were thrown open for general candidates. It is stated that in pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted application through his employer university vide its letter dated 28.5.1991. Though the advertisement was issued in the year 1991, due to some administrative reason or other the selection process could not be finalized. Therefore, in the year 1993 another advertisement was issued for the same posts wherein it is mentioned that the persons who applied earlier for the same posts in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1/1991, need not apply afresh, but they have to furnish the additional information as required in the second Advertisement No.5/1993. Even after three years of the second notification also, the selection process has not been commenced. 3. Due to lapse of time in commencing the selection process for the post of Senior Scientists, the Selection Committee sought for information from the applicants who applied for the said posts as to whether they are still interested to be considered for the said posts. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is said to have sent his willingness to attend the interview for the post of Senior Scientists NAARM, but he did not receive any call letter from the first respondent. Hence, he made a representation on 01.03.1996 to the respondents. As there was no response to his representation, he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal, wherein he has also filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim relief. The Tribunal by its order dated 07.03.1996 directed the first respondent to allow the petitioner/applicant for the interview scheduled to be held on 11th and 12th of March, 1996. The original application was decided on 23.04.1997, directing the first respondent to release the result of the petitioner/applicant. Thereafter, the first respondent communicated a letter dated 04.09.1997 stating that the name of the petitioner/applicant did not figure in the list of candidates recommended for appointment. Challenging that order No.34(Sr.Sci)1/90-Per.II dated 04.09.1997, the petitioner/applicant filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. 4. The first respondent filed counter before the Tribunal stating that when the number of applications are large, the Board may restrict the number by short listing the candidates to be called for interview basing on the qualifications and experience, and accordingly, the first respondent herein short listed the candidates basing on the qualifications and experience possessed by each candidate. As the petitioner/applicant did not fulfil the criteria for short listing, he was not called for the interview. However, as per the orders of the Tribunal dated 07.03.1996, the petitioner/applicant was called for the interview. Out of eight posts notified, the Selection Board recommended only seven candidates for the appointment and the name of the petitioner/applicant was not recommended by the Selection Committee. 5. Basing on the rival contentions, the Tribunal having perused the original selection committee proceedings, attendance sheet of the candidates for the post of Senior Scientists and the letter regarding reservation from ICAR, forwarding letter and Comments of the Secretary, ASRB, came to a conclusion that the Court or the Tribunal cannot interfere with the selection proceedings, and the contention of the petitioner/applicant that the persons who were selected for the post of Senior Scientists are less qualified than himself was not born out from any records, and therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated.04.09.1997 and accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed. Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that all the candidates who were got selected in the selection process are less meritorious than the petitioner, that the petitioner has got higher qualifications, that the candidates who were selected are ten years juniors to the petitioner, and that the selected candidates even did not attend the interview, as per the list furnished by the respondent in the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays to set aside impugned proceedings dated 04.09.1997. 7. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondents. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is more qualified than the selected candidates for the post of Senior Scientists, but his candidature was not considered and hence the selection process is illegal. We are unable to accept the said contention unless there are mala fides or illegalities attributed to the Selection Committee. Normally, the Court will not interfere with the selection of the candidates by the Selection Committee. It is nowhere stated either in the writ petition or in the affidavit filed in support of the original application before the Tribunal attributing mala fides to the Selection Committee or that the selection is contrary to the service conditions laid down as per the rules. 9. The petitioner challenges the information given by the first respondent dated 04.09.1997, wherein and whereby he was informed that his name was not figured in the list of candidates recommended for appointment by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board to the post of Senior Scientists at National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad. 10. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the photostat copy of the list of candidates appeared for the interview whereunder 31 candidates were called for the interview, out of which some of them were absent and the candidates selected for the Senior Scientist posts did not even attend the interview, as per the said list. We are not unable to accept this contention in view of the fact that the Tribunal made an observation in its judgment that it has seen the original selection committee proceedings and also the attendance sheet of the candidates for the post of Senior Scientists NAARM, Hyderabad held on 11th and 12th March, 1996. If really the candidates who were selected were not called for the interview, the same should have been pointed out by the Tribunal. 11. Further more, the Tribunal also found that the first respondent has not received the application of the petitioner/applicant for post of Senior Scientists though it was disputed by the Agricultural University. The application forwarded by the university was not available in the office of the Selection Board and the officer of the first respondent was present before the Tribunal and explained the procedure adopted by the Selection Board for short listing by placing necessary material. By virtue of an interim order, the petitioner attended the interview unsuccessfully. There is no proof to show that his application was sent in pursuance of notification or that through proper channel or that he is willing to continue when additional information was called for, as there was delay in the process of selection. In the absence of his application, the Tribunal rightly held that the application of the petitioner/applicant was not available. That finding was not shown to be incorrect. None of the findings of the Tribunal is shown to be incorrect or perverse or contrary to the material available on record. Therefore, in the absence of specific challenge to the selection process, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________ K.C.BHANU,J 1st July, 2009. Ivd/Dsr