Division Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistant Directors due to age relaxation. The court held the claim barred by laches and res judicata, noting no fundamental rights violation as the panel had expired before the new post was sanctioned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 01.03.2017
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nooty. Ramamohana Rao
and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.32275 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
Dr.C.Muniandi ...Petitioner
Vs 1 Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the connected records, leading to the issue of the impugned order of the fifth respondent, dated 23.06.2015, in O.A.No.722 of 2012, and to quash the same as illegal and void and consequently, to direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director in Pasteur Institute of India, Coonoor with all attendant and consequential benefits.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Amardeep for M/s.Tamizh Law Firm.
For Respondents 1 & 2:Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao
Standing Counsel for Central Govt.
For Respondents 3 & 4:Mr.N.Ramesh
For Respondent-5 :Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.,)
This Writ Petition is instituted, calling in question, the correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, (hereinafter, referred to as ' Tribunal') on 23rd June, 2015, in O.A.No.722 of 2012.
i) The present writ petitioner was the applicant in the said Original Application. Pasteur Institute of India, Coonoor, (for brevity, Institute henceforth) is an autonomous body, controlled and governed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The said Institute is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its own bye-laws for regulating its day-to-day affairs. It being an autonomous Institute, it keeps adopting with or without suitable modification the rules and orders of the Government of India. The Governing Body of the Institute is headed by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. The other important members of the Governing Body, include i) Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, ii) Director General of Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and iii) Drugs Controller of India, New Delhi. The Central Government and the Government of Tamil Nadu also nominate two eminent Scientists respectively to the Governing Body. The Director of the Institute acts as a Member Secretary of the Governing Body. At the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner was working as Assistant Research Officer, (Group B) in the Institute. He possesses Post Graduate degree in M.Sc. (Microbiology) and Doctoral Degree of Ph.D.
ii) The Institute, by its notification issued on 7th September, 2005, notified that the post of Deputy Director and Assistant Director are to be filled in by the method of direct recruitment, and invited applications from the candidates possessing necessary academic qualifications and experience.
For the post of Assistant Director, in Group A service, upper age limit was prescribed as 45 years. However, the advertisement No.2 of 2005, dated 27th August, 2005 has entered a caveat that the upper age limit is relaxable by the Governing Body under special circumstances. The writ petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 herein and several others have responded to this notification. The Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India has been constituted for conducting interviews to the shortlisted candidates on 01st March, 2006. The Deputy Director General of Health Service, Government of India, the Director of Tuberculosis Research Centre, Chennai, a Laboratory of the Indian Council of Medical Research and the Director, in charge of the King Institute of Preventive Medicine, Chennai, and the Director of the Institute comprise the other four members of the Selection Committee. Out of 19 short-listed candidates for the post of Assistant Director, 17 candidates have attended the interview, two candidates, viz., Dr.Sibani Berman and Mr.A.Subramanian did not appear for the interview. The Selection Committee prepared a panel, consisting of five names in the order of merit, wherein, third respondent was kept at Sl.No.1, fourth respondent at Sl.No.2 and the writ petitioner, at Sl.No.3. Dr.N.Sivananda of Erode and Dr.P.Saravanan of Uttaranchal were placed at Sl.Nos.4 and 5 respectively.
iii) The Selection Committee has finalised the merit order of the candidates, and prepared a panel accordingly, subject to i) Relaxation of age and ii) Approval of the Governing Body. It appears that the Secretary to the Government of India (Health and Family Welfare) in his capacity as Chairperson of the Governing Body of the Institute, conveyed an approval to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, by letter, dated 14th March, 2006. Hence, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare conveyed the approval for the age relaxation, in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, who are beyond the age of 45 years, and also the approval of the Governing Body Institute for their appointment has been conveyed. Accordingly, on 16th March, 2006, the respondents 3 and 4 came to be appointed as Assistant Directors of the Institute.
iv) Petitioner, on coming to know that one more post of Assistant Director was sanctioned to the Institute on 11th May, 2007, sought for appointment in the newly sanctioned post, based upon inclusion of his name in the panel drawn by the Selection Committee on 01st March, 2006 at Sl.No.3, as by 11th May, 2007, two candidates, placed above him at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the panel have already been appointed as Assistant Directors on 16th March, 2006 itself. To secure consideration of his case for appointment as Assistant Director, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, by instituting O.S.No.532 of 2008. Tribunal gave certain directions to the respondents therein to consider his
case, and pass appropriate orders. On 15th February 2009, an order was passed, declining to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment as Assistant Director against the newly sanctioned post on 11th May, 2007, on the ground that, life span of the panel prepared on 01st March, 2006, is only of six month and the six months period has expired by 31st August, 2006, and nearly one year, thereafter, the post of Assistant Director was newly sanctioned to the Institute, and hence, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered based upon his ranking in the expired panel.
v) The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Director on 15th February 2009, resulted in instituting O.A.No.1224 of 2009, by the petitioner, and by an order, dated 28.02.2011, the Tribunal has quashed the order, dated 15.02.2009, and issued consequential direction to the respondents therein to appoint the applicant therein, (the present petitioner) as Assistant Director with effect from 11th May, 2007, when the post was so created. The Director of the Institute and Union of India challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.1224 of 2009, by instituting a Writ Petition, in W.P.No.11923 of 2011. The petitioner has also instituted W.P.No.20760 of 2011, when the Tribunal declined to modify its earlier order suitably. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together by the Division Bench, and they were disposed of by a common order, dated 18.11.2011. The Division Bench has held that the reasons weighed with Tribunal, in allowing O.A.No.1224 of 2009 is not acceptable, and hence, the order, dated 28.02.2011, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1224 of 2009, was set aside and the W.P.No.11923 of 2011 was allowed and W.P.No.20760 of 2011, instituted by the petitioner was dismissed.
vi) Not content and happy with this result, dated 18.11.2011 handed down by the Division Bench of this Court, the present petitioner ventured to file another Original Application, being O.A.No.722 of 2012, challenging the selection and appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 as Assistant Directors on 16.03.2006. That O.A.No.722 of 2012 is now dismissed by the Tribunal, on 23.06.2015, essentially, for two fold reasons. Firstly that, the said Original Application is barred by delay and laches, and secondly, that the principle of res judicata would apply. It is against this judgment, the present Writ Petition is instituted.
Application (i.e. O.S.No.722 of 2012). Though the petitioner has been asking for information to be made available, the Information Officer, attached to the Institute, was not willing to part with the information, and only when the petitioner went in Appeal, and secured direction in his favour for making available the necessary information, the information was grudgingly furnished to him in October, 2011 and immediately thereafter, the present O.A.No.722 of 2012 was filed, and hence, the view of the Tribunal that there was delay and laches on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable.
direction was issued to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Director against the newly sanctioned post on 11th May.2007. Therefore, the petitioner had an occasion and opportunity to challenge the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistant Directors not only after 16.03.2006, but even at the time, when he instituted O.A.No.532 of 2008, but, he has not chosen to challenge the correctness of the inclusion of the names of respondents 3 and 4 in the selection panel drawn on 1st March, 2006, which panel was drawn, resulting in the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistant Director on 16th March, 2006. He is virtually acquiesced in the selections that were carried on 1st March, 2006. Only when the Official respondents have challenged the correctness of the order passed by CAT in O.A.No.1224 of 2009 on 15.02.2009, quashing the order of rejection of the petitioner's candidature, and issued declaration that the writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as Assistant Director, w.e.f. 11th May, 2007 onwards, the writ petitioner turned around and started challenging the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4.
the Institute, when the case of the writ petitioner has received appropriate consideration at the hands of Selection Committee, which included him at Sl.No.3 in the panel of five candidates. Unfortunately, for him, the life span of the panel was only six months, and during the currency of such life span, the new post of Assistant Director has not been sanctioned by the Government to the Institute, and it came to be sanctioned only on 11th May, 2007, long after the expiry of panel on 31.08.2006. In that view of the matter, no fundamental right of the petitioner is violated, and hence, there was no occasion for one to ignore the principles underlying the concept of delay and laches being treated as fatal for maintaining certain claims. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view expressed by the the Tribunal this time is not erroneous at all.
disappointments, after all, temporary hurdles in one's own progress are easily surmounted with little more effort and industry. We hope that petitioner would carry on with his research activities, and publish great quality work, which would fetch him appropriate recognition. We also hope that the Institute would view the entire litigation instituted by the petitioner as a genuine attempt of a person, seeking to get recognition of his rights only. With this, the writ petition stands dismissed, but, however, without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd
To Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.
2. The Director,
Pasteur Institute of India
Coonoor – 643 103,
Nilgiris District.
3. Shri B.Sundaran
Assistant Director,
Pasteur Institute of India
Coonoor – 643 103.
4. Dr.K.N. Venkataramana
Assistant Director,
Pasteur Institute of India Coonoor – 643 103.
5. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai – 600 104.
+1 CC to Mr. N. Ramesh, sr 13449(06/04/2017)
+1 CC to Mr. Tamizh Law Firm, sr 14062(06/04/2017)
NR(CO)
RS(22/03/2017)
W.P.No.32275 of 2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's delay of six years in challenging the selection and appointment of junior candidates is fatal due to laches.
Whether the principle of res judicata applies to bar the petitioner from challenging the earlier appointments given his prior litigation.
Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 were violated by the relaxation of the age limit.
Dr.C.Muniandi
Union of India
Director, Pasteur Institute of India
Shri B.Sundaran
Dr.K.N. Venkataramana
Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
