IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14914 of 2007(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. BINDU BHASKAR, U.D.CLERK (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE), KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANAN- THAPURAM,RESIDING AT MALATHI NIVAS,KALACHANAZHIKOM CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. S.JAYASREE, DO. DO., RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, T.C.NO.19/1083(1), THERIVILA, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BEENA JACOB, DO. DO. RESIDING AT BEENA NIVAS, T.C.5/1816, OOLAMPARA JUNCTION, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5. 4. J.PRAKASHKUMAR, DRIVER (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE), KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PRAKASH BHAVAN, PUNAKKODE, MANALUVILA, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. C.P.MUHAMMED, PEON, DO. DO., RESIDING AT CHENTHARA HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.PRAMJI PAUL VAZHAPPILLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SOCIAL WELFARE (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRTARY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CENTRAL SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAMAJ KALYAN BHAVAN, B-12 UITAB INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI 110 016 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON 08/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14914/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RULES GOVERNING COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE SOCIAL WELFARE ADVISORY BOARDS. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F9(GENL)96-97/SBA DT. 25.2.05 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO.1/2003/SWD DT. 3.1.03 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1.ESTT/SB/GENL./VOL.VII/2005-06/537 DT. 21.5.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT EMPLYMENT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/ESTT/SB/GENL/VOL.VII/2005-06/817 DT. 17.6.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/ESTT/SB/GENL/VOL.VII/2005-06/821 DT. 17.6.05 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3(1)9/93/SBA DT. 12.7.05 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT. 10.8.05 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/ESTT/SB/GENL/VOL.VIII DT. 23.9.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.509/05/SWD DT. 15.10.05 ISSUEDD BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.1.06 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. P16:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 21.2.06. W.P.(C) NO.14914/2007 P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC. NO.32201/05 DT. 23.1.06. P18:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC. NO.32201/05 DT. 2.3.06. P19:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT (WITHOUT EXTS) FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT (2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN) IN WPC. NO.32201/05. P20:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC. NO.32201/05 DT. 4.4.07. P21:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 27.4.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P22:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 27.4.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P23:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 27.54.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P24:_ COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 27.4.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P25:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 27.4.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. P26:- COPY OF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DT. 3.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P27:- COPY OF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DT. 3.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P28:- COPY OF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DT. 3.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P29:- COPY OF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DT. 3.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P30:- COPY OF THE REPLY (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DT. 3.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P31:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P32:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P33:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P34:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. W.P.(C)NO.14914/2007 P35:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. P36:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19.9.06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FINANCE (INSPECTION WING NT-H) DEPARTMENT. R2(b):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 4.6.07. R2(c):- COPY OF THE NOTING MADE BY THE SECRETARY. R2(d):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY the 3RD PETITIONER. R2(e):- COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT BY THE THEN CHAIRPERSON. R2(f):- COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL CLAIMED BY THE THEN CHAIRPERSON. R2(g):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17.10.05. R2(h):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.10.05. R2(i):- COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE MADE FROM THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD. R2(j):- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 18.11.05. R2(k):- COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER MAINTAINED ON 19.11.05. E2(l):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.4.07 . R2(m):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL BOARD. R2(n):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF INTERNAL AUDIT. R2(o):- COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL. R2(p):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF FINANCE COMMITTEE DT. 5.1.07. R2(q):- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HELD ON 26.4.07. R2(r):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING HELD ON 23.6.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 14914 of 2007-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders terminating their service with the second respondent Kerala State Social Welfare Board as per Exts.P31 to P35. Petitioners 1 to 3 were working as U.D. Clerks, 4th petitioner as Driver and 5th petitioner as Peon. 2. The 4th respondent herein is the Central Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Board') and the second respondent State Social Welfare Board is its unit. The State Board is under the pervasive control of the Central Board. What happened in this case in a nutshell is that the petitioners were appointed as per Exts.P11 to P15 orders after a process of selection. Their appointments were approved by the Central Board as per Ext.P36. The successor Board initiated steps to terminate their service as per Exts.P21 to P25 notices. Rejecting their explanations, orders of termination have been passed and were effected. 3. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: The 4th respondent Central Board had sanctioned three new posts of U.D. Clerks and two posts of Drivers as per Ext.P2. Direction was also issued to fill up WPC 14914/2007 2 the posts after following State recruitment rules for appointment of staff. Since the appointment to the services were not brought within the purview of the Public Service Commission, the second respondent made a request dated 6.4.2005 to the District Officer to forward a list of candidates for selection and appointment as L.D.Clerks/U.D.Clerks and Drivers on a regular basis. It was followed by Exts.P4 and P5 reminders by the second respondent. Subsequently, by Ext.P6, the matter was reported to the Central Board by the State Board with a request to give permission to take candidates by advertisement, since there is acute dearth of staff in the State Board. That was permitted by the Central Board as per Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is the notification published in Mathrubhumi Daily. As per Ext.P9 the State Government was informed about the constitution of the selection committee consisting of various persons including a representative from the Social Welfare Department. The State Government by Ext.P10, nominated the Additional Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department as a representative of the said department in the selection committee. After conducting interview, the candidates were appointed. Practical test was conducted for the post of Driver by a Motor Vehicle Inspector. Initially, appointment orders were issued on 18.10.2005, but alleging violation of the model code of conduct for election, the District Collector objected to the WPC 14914/2007 3 selection. After getting clarification letter from the District Collector, petitioners 1 to 4 were appointed by separate orders dated 19.11.2005 and the appointees joined duty on various dates. The orders were issued by the Chairperson which was rectified later. The 5th petitioner was appointed as Peon on 31.1.2006 in the vacancy caused due to the resignation of one Mr. Satheesan who was appointed on 19.11.2005. 4. Earlier, a Clerk Typist in the Board had filed Writ Petition No.32201/2005 challenging the notification raising a contention that she was entitled for promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk. Initially, an order of stay was granted on 18.10.2005 which was modified as per Ext.P17 by directing that one post of Grade I Clerk may be kept vacant. That order was later vacated by Ext.P18 order. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein are respondents 4 to 6 in the above writ petition. When that writ petition was heard on 4.4.2007, learned Govt. Pleader submitted that the Government wants to have a second look of the entire selection in consultation with the Central appointing authority. It was clarified by this court in Ext.P20 order that the pendency of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the concerned authority taking a decision. It is thereafter, that the show cause notices were issued and the services of the petitioners were terminated. 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri K.R.B. Kaimal appearing for WPC 14914/2007 4 the petitioners and learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. On behalf of the second respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that Exts.P31 to P35 are non-speaking orders and the explanations offered by the petitioners have not been considered and there is total non-application of mind. It is also submitted that the reasons stated in the show cause notices for termination are not sustainable. One of the main contentions raised is that the State Government does not come in the picture and it has no administrative or supervisory control over the affairs of the second respondent and what was done by the Chairperson was only based on the directions of the State Government and hence the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the then Board had not violated any directions of the Central Board and the State Government and the appointments were effected as permitted by the Central Board and had been approved by them also. It is also submitted that in spite of Ext.P20 interim order, termination was done without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. By referring to the details stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the replies to the show cause notices were submitted in the office on 3.5.2007. WPC 14914/2007 5 The Chairperson was not there at that time. The Chairperson came to the office only at 1.45 p.m. on 5.5.2007 and hurriedly issued identical orders cancelling the appointment and terminated their services. It is submitted that this shows an undue haste, malafides and violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. A reading of Exts.P31 to P35 orders shows that no detailed reasons have been stated therein. They are identically worded. The replies submitted by the petitioners have not been considered on their merit. The reasons pointed out in the show cause notices have not been discussed with reference to the objections submitted by the petitioners and no detailed reasoning has been made also for cancelling the appointments. It is stated in a general manner that “the explanation offered by the petitioners were not satisfactory, that the appointment of petitioners to the respective posts is against social justice and have been made denying chance for various candidates. They have been effected against the procedures prescribed and that all the steps are not transparent and ill-motivated”. Inviting my attention to the show cause notice and the explanation offered, learned Senior Counsel contended that the orders Exts.P31 to P35 are really non- speaking ones. A reading of the show cause notices shows that different points are indicated for cancelling the appointment. Detailed explanations WPC 14914/2007 6 have been offered by the petitioners which are Exts.P26 to P30. Grounds for cancellation have not been made out specifically or pin-pointedly. Satisfaction of the authority concerned is not reflected adequately. Thus, the orders Exts.P31 to P35 suffer from total non application of mind and really they are non-speaking orders. It is well settled that an authority vested with power should act fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, while dealing with rights of parties. A reasoned order is a sine qua non in such circumstances, especially since the order visits with adverse civil consequences, like the one in this case, which resulted in cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners itself. 8. In an attempt to salvage the situation, the learned Govt. Pleader, by relying upon the counter affidavit, submits that the allegations are supported by documents referred to in the counter affidavit and therefore the orders are not vitiated. It is pointed out that as per Ext.R2(a) the Finance Inspection Wing had submitted a report showing various irregularities in the appointment. Learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that practical test for the post of Driver was conducted in a vehicle of the Department of Finance and the Vehicle Inspector was brought to the office in the State Board in this car by the 4th petitioner who was a candidate and who was working as a driver on daily wages in the said vehicle. It is also submitted that the third WPC 14914/2007 7 petitioner is a close relative of the then Chairperson. Exts.R2(d) to R2(f) are relied upon to sustain the said contention. It is also submitted that the model code of conduct was violated and the order of stay issued by this court in Writ Petition No.32201/2005 was also not complied with. 9. It is a well accepted principle of law that validity of an order under challenge has to be judged in the light of the reasons stated in the order itself and it cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court stated the law thus in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (AIR 1978 S.C. 851) in the following words: “When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity has to be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds brought out later.” The said dictum squarely applies to the facts of this case. Only in the counter affidavit reasons are stated to support the cancellation of appointment. As noted already, in the orders of termination, specific reasons have not been pointed out with reference to the grounds stated in the show cause notice. It is not clear from the order, as to what are the WPC 14914/2007 8 genuine reasons for cancellation which were found acceptable by the second respondent as sufficient which resulted in the cancellation of the orders of appointment. In a show cause notice various grounds which are minor and major can be included. When an assessment is made with reference to the explanation, the affected party will be able to assess the mind of the authority only if reasons are stated with reference to the points raised in the show cause notice and the consideration placed on the specific explanation offered to each one of them. By stating that the explanation is found not satisfactory, the authority is really indulging in beating around the bush alone. That itself violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the attempt made to support the order by stating detailed reasons in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted in the light of the legal position as noted above. Hence, Exts.P31 to P35 cannot be sustained. 10. Learned Senior counsel further contended that none of the materials placed in the counter affidavit have been communicated to the petitioners at any time. It is therefore submitted that those cannot be relied upon at all. It is also pointed out that the entire action is dictated by the Government as seen from Ext.R2(l) letter dated 25.4.2007 addressed to the second respondent wherein certain reasons have been itemized to cancel the appointment and finally the second respondent was directed to take steps to WPC 14914/2007 9 cancel the appointment and terminate the persons from service. It is contended that the Government has no such jurisdiction in the matter, as the second respondent is not a unit under it. 11. It is well settled that when materials are relied upon by an authority to arrive at its own conclusion to render findings against the person concerned, natural justice requires that those materials should be supplied to the affected person. Herein, going by the counter affidavit, Ext.R2(a) is the report of the Inspection Wing of NT-H Department. A reading of the said report does not show that the report is preceded by any enquiry with notice to the appointees. They were not supplied with the copy of the said report also. Ext.R2(n) is a report of the Internal Audit and Ext.R2(o) is the report of the Accountant General. None of these documents have been mentioned in the show cause notices also. It is important to mention herein that in the show cause notice, what is mentioned is only that the Finance Inspection Wing had conducted an enquiry. It is not elaborated at all. Thus, when these reports are made mention of in the counter affidavit and relied upon to justify the action, the non supply of such adverse materials violates the principles of natural justice. This position was examined by the Apex Court in Benny v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies {1998 (1) 858 (SC)}. In that WPC 14914/2007 10 case the report of the Kerala Public Men's (Corruption, Investigation and Enquiries) Commission, was relied upon by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to cancel the appointment of various candidates appointed by a District Co-operative Bank without stating details of the irregularities in the show cause notice and without serving copies of the report to the appointees. The argument that there is violation of principles of natural justice for non supply of the said materials even though was accepted by the learned Single Judge, it was rejected by a Division Bench of this court and the report was relied upon by the Division Bench to hold that the selection is vitiated. In para 20, while considering the contention, the Apex Court held that the view taken by the Division Bench is wrong. Their Lordships laid down the dictum in the following words: “ In our considered opinion the Division Bench patently committed an error in relying upon the report of the Commission and in recording a finding that irregularities have been committed in the selection notwithstanding the fact that the said report had not been made available to the Bank by the affected parties. That apart, as stated earlier, in the notice that was issued by the Registrar, there was no particulars given and on such vague assertions made, it was not permissible to record a conclusion that there has been irregularity in the process of selection. The said conclusion of the Division Bench must accordingly be set aside…………..It would WPC 14914/2007 11 tantamount to gross violation of the principles of natural justice which cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public interest demands annulment of the selection.” Therefore, this court cannot rely upon the said materials which have been produced along with the counter affidavit as the appointees/petitioners were not served with such materials either along with the show cause notice or thereafter before the order was passed. They have not been made mention of, or discussed and relied upon in the orders of termination. For the first time they have been produced and relied upon herein to justify the orders impugned. In that view of the matter also the orders impugned are unsustainable. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners also pointed out that the reasons shown now are not sustainable also. One of the main reasons pointed out in the show cause notice in support of the cancellation is that the appointments were made without waiting for the reply by the Exchange which is not in accordance with law. As noted already, the then Board had sought for reply from the Exchange and Exts.P4 and P5 are the reminders. Stating that they did not get any reply, by Ext.P6 they approached the Central Board for permission to take candidates by direct recruitment. That permission was granted as per Ext.P7. A Selection Committee was WPC 14914/2007 12 constituted in which an officer of the State Government in the Social Welfare Department was also a member and the Government, by Ext.P10, nominated the Additional Secretary to the said Department to be in the Selection Committee. Finally, as per Ext.P36, their appointments were approved by the 4th respondent Central Board also. Thus, the reason pointed out that there is violation of the established procedure, does not hold good. Violation of the model Code of Conduct, if any, cannot result in cancellation of the appointment. In this case, the facts of the case show that after the communication of the District Collector was received, the appointees did not join duty and they were appointed by fresh orders dated 19.11.2005. Thus, that reason cannot hold good. Another one is that notification was published only in one newspaper, even though the Central Board directed the notification to be published in newspapers. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the notification was published in a leading daily, Mathrubhumi and therefore no irregularity can be pointed out. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that by giving the advertisement in Box Number, no procedure is followed. It is seen that the notification was published in Mathrubhumi Daily which is a leading newspaper in Malayalam having wide circulation in and outside Kerala. Therefore, merely because it is not published in two different newspapers, WPC 14914/2007 13 that will not affect the selection process. Even though it is contended by the respondents that in the absence of the identity of the institution there was no proper response to the notification, the fact that it was given with Box number does not itself nullify the selection process, as there was no specific stipulation regarding the mode of giving advertisement. That is not a ground itself to nullify the entire procedure taken. It was explained by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that by giving the advertisement in Box number, secrecy has been maintained. 13. The next item is that a member of the Board was nominated in the interview board and that member is a close friend