of 2020, re-appointment for another term subject to satisfying the age limit is permissible and such re-appointment is required to be made on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee. There being a right to be considered for re-appointment the same was dependent principally on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It was therefore not necessary for such appointees seeking re-appointment to appear at the written examination as prescribed. Their performance in their earlier tenure could be examined and their candidature could be considered on that basis. Since the issue with regard to re-appointment was not the subject matter of challenge in the earlier round of litigation, the decision in The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs (supra) could not be made applicable to the petitioners requiring them to again appear for the written examination. Attention was invited to the Rules of 2019 and especially Rule 8(18) of the said Rules wherein it was stipulated that the Selection Committee while making recommendation in the matter of re-appointment was required to take into consideration the confidential reports, the disposal of cases, performance during first appointment, the general reputation of a candidate and complaints if any pending against the candidate. It was urged that this modality being fair, the same could be adopted while considering the candidature of the petitioners for re-appointment. Reliance was placed on the decision in Mukund Bhagwan Saste Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [ Writ Petition No. 4974 of 2018 ] decided on 18.02.2019 at the Aurangabad Bench.
