Allowed

Neelam Lavanya, Hyd. v. D.G., Niphm, Hyd. and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023WP/31494/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a selection committee lacked jurisdiction to allocate weightage marks under heads not prescribed in the recruitment notification. Adopting new norms midway during the selection process was impermissible as it altered the rules of the game after the selection commenced.

What did the court decide?

Selection process set aside; order of selection and appointment quashed; respondent directed to issue fresh notification within 4 months.

Neelam Lavanya, Hyd. Vs D.G., Niphm, Hyd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13257 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I/ONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 31494 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

IVrs. Neelam Lavanya; aged 41 years D/o Sri N Kumara Swamy Occ Scientrfic Officer (BP and IVC) 0/o National lnstitute of Plant Health lr4anagement,(NlPHlV) Rajendranagar Hyderabad R/o Rat No 304 Shell Paradise Apartments, PJR Enclave Gangaram Hyderabad 500050

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 National Institute of Plant Health l\rlanagement, Rep by its Director General: Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500030

¶13

2 Union of lndia, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, lvlinistry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of lndia rep by its Secretary to Government of lndia New Delhi

¶14

3 Dr Edpuganti Sree Latha:, Assistant Director (PHIvi) at NlPHlvl O/o National lnstitute of Plant Health N/anagement, Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500030

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the High Court may^be pteased to issue a Writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus and after calling for records^pertaining to^the impugned order of Selection^vide No. FNo.2(3'10)2016-rf.AD(PHM)-Estt,^dated 20-6-16^{passedby 1st Respondent} and consequent Impugned order of offer^o1 vide F. No.2(310)2O16"OOo;ntment rf .AD(PHlr/)-Estt dated 22-6-16 issued/passed by 1st Respondent^{appointingthe} 3rd Respondent as AD(PHM) and set^{asidethe impugned orderof selectionand} appointment of the 3rd Respondent^{as Assistant Dlrector(PH[/) at NIPHIV|as} illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and^{unconstitutional consequentlydeclare that} the applicant is entitled to be appointed^{to the said post and consequently direct} the 1st and 2nd Respondents to appointment the^{applicantas Assistant Director}

¶17

(PHIM) at NIPHM fr:nr the date on which the 3rd ResF)ondent war; appointed with all consequential b,:nefits like seniority, arrears of pay etc. lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition undlr Section 1 51 CPC praying that irr the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 ma / be pleased to direct the l st Respondent not to promote the 3rd Resprqndsnl to any other higher posts pendrng dispr sal of the above writ petition

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirt;unstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higl-, Court rnal be pleased to take into consideration this Additional Affidavit and conseqriently allow the WP with costs pending c isoosal of the above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petrtioner: SRI Dr. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHIt

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KtJM/\R (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEN 3F INDIA)

¶23

Counsel for the Res rondent No.3: SRI GODA SIVA SR. COU^NISET REP M/s. GODA RAM LAKSHMI

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶26

WRIT PETITION o.31494 of 2()16

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare lhe order- of selection, dated 20.06.2016 and the consequential orde!- of appointment dated 22.06.2016, both passed by respondent Nc.l, appointing respondent No.3 as Assistant Director (PHM), as illegal and arbitrarv and consequently direct respondent Nos.l and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director (PHM) at NIPHM from the date on which respondent No.3 was appointed, with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay, etc.

¶29

Heard the subnlissions of Dr.K.Laxmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, iearned Deputy Solicitor General of india appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

¶30

The petitioner was appointed as a Scientific Officer^(Bio pesticide and Bio control) ;n the 1't respondent institution on 02.05.2011 on deputation basis initially for a^period of two^years and subsequently, she was appointed on regular basis under^direct recruitment. Her^probation was^also declared in the said^{post with} t /

¶31

¶32

2 )s, l W P.^o.3 7494 of²⁰⁷⁶

¶33

effect from 05.06.2013. When respon(lent N r.1 has issued notification N ).1 ot 2016 to fill up, s.onn ()tfrer pc)sts,, one post of Assistant Dirr:ctor (PHlvl) Agri by way oF dire,:[ recrLitment or on deputation b rsis, the petitioner has participaterl in the selection process. Ultirnately, when respondent No.3 lvas declared selected vide impugred order, dated 20.06,201(;, the pstitioner has challenged tlre same before the Central r\dmiristraiive Tribunal, Hyderabad b1 filing O.A.No.721 of 2016, whi,:h was Cisxissed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 31.08.2016 on the groLrnd that it lacks jurisdiction tc try the said O.A, and petitioner- was c ranted Iiberty to approach apf rc,priate forum for redressal of her r;riev,rnce. Hence, th is writ petit on

¶34

Learne( Counsel for the petitioner would :;ubmit that the selection of respondent No.3 to the subject p:st i.e., Assistant Director (PHItl) Agri is illegal, arbitrary and bad ir |,aw. He contends that as per^i.he notification, the selection shoulc l)e made on the basis of writl en test, power point^presentation ancl interview only, however, th() Selection Committee, without arry authority, has evolved its orvn method of selection, by^givir'g weigttta 3e marks' of 5 for M.Sc, 5 fr,r Ph.D, 5 for work recognition, 5 for e:<perrience, 10 for advanced tralning, 10 for publications in^journals, 2C for written test, 15 for presentation and 25 for interview,^totalling to 1C0 marks. It is

¶35

JS, J W.P.No.37494 of 2076

¶36

¶37

¶38

also submitted that limiting the weightage marks for written examination to 20 and giving weightage marks of 25 for interview, vitiates the entire selection process.

¶39

In support of his contentions, learned counsel For the petitaoner has relied on the followin I decisions:

¶40

Umesh Chandra Shukla vs. Union of Indial

¶41

Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa2

¶42

Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu and others vs. State of Orissa3

¶43

Manjusree vs. State of A.P,a

¶44

Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhis

¶45

Mohd. Sohrab Kham vs. Aligarh Muslim University and otherss

¶46

Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and othersT

¶47

B. Bishnu Biswas and others vs" UOI and others8

¶48

Sanjay K Dixit and others vs. State of U.P.e

¶49

Nitesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradeshl0

¶50

Ramjit Sin gh Kardam and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar ll

¶51

and others

¶52

'^{(r985) I scc 72t} 'ttle;;^{a scc oao} '^{(1995)6 scc I} n (2008) i scc 5 t2

¶53

' 1zooe1^{z sccr t} u (2009) 4 scc s55

¶54

'^{(zor r} )^{rz sccas}

¶55

'^{(zota) s scc 7za} e 20l9 scc online sc 260 'o^{(2020)4 scc 70} "^{(2020) 20 scc 2os /} //

¶56

¶57

ls, J W. P. No.31494 of²⁰¹⁶

¶58

Krishna Rai (dead) through LRs and ot1(:rs vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registral and other sl2

¶59

Sure:;hkumar Lalithkumar Patel and oth(:rs vs. State of Gu ia rat and othersrr

¶60

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter-afFicavit stating that the Directlr General of respondent No.1-Institutior constitutes expert commit:ees (including outside experts) for 'illingr up various posts in the In:;titution. In the present case, tlte selactior committee consisted of f ve experts in their respective fielrls a rd the said selection comnrittee has adopted the same guidelin:s as adopted on earlier occasiorrs and in fact, the petitioner has also gone through the similar selectic n process and got selected ior the post of Scientific Officer as a direct recruitee during the year 20 11. thus, having gone through the s milar selection process earlier to tr€ pcst which is being held by the petitioner at present, she c,lnnot cfntend that the said process is illegal. It is stated that the unofficia respondent No.3 was selected based on the marks/merit securerd by h(rr ir accordance with the appr(,ved guidelines. It is admitted that in th€: notification, though no weightage marks were prescribed lor thr:^{^/ri} :ten test, the written test \A as conducted for B0 marks and 20 nlarl<s weightage was given. In[erview was also conducted for.15 mari:s ;rnd 25 marks weightage was given to the same. It is steted thert a logical and

¶61

'' 1:ozz;^{t scc zt:} rr 2023 SCC Online I iC t67

¶62

5 JS, J W.P.No.37494 of 2O76

¶63

impartial procedure to test the suitabiiity of the candidates was followed as has been done on earlier occasions, therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶64

¶65

Respondent No.3 i.e. the unoFficial respondent who got selected pursuant to lhe^p!"esent notification, has filed separate counter-affidavit apart from adopting the contents of the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is stated by respondent No.3 that pursuant to the notiFication issued by the respondents, she participated in the selection process and got selected to the post of Assistant Director (PHM ) Agriculture and is discharging her duties as such. It is stated that though the selection^process was completed and appointment letter was issued to her on 22.06.2016 itself and in spite of being aware of all the^proceedings, the^petitioner has kept^quiet and has filed the^present writ^petition belatedly on 16.09.2016 without valid ground to interFere with the selection process adopted by the respondents. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶66

B. Case of the petitioner is that as per the notification, selection to the post of Assistant Director (PHM) Agri will be based on the written test, power point presentation and interview and no specific marks are^prescribed under the said three heads. However, the / r'

¶67

¶68

ts, l n/ P.No.31494 of 2076

¶69

Selection Conrmittee has revealed the guidelines^f ollorn'ed by it^only on 16.06.2016 i.e. on which date, the wr tten t€rst,^{power point} presentation end interviews were conducted. The said guidelines reveal allocat on of weightage marks, i.e., 5 marl:s for- lvl.Sc., 5 for Ph.D.,5 for work recognition, 5 for experience, 10 for advance training, 10 f or publications in^journals, 20 for^r,r, ri'-ten test, 15 for presentation lnd 25 for interview, totalling to 1C 0 m,rrks, which is not permissib e.

¶70

Coming to the^judgments relied on by the l-.;rrnt:d counsel for petitioner;

¶71

In Urrresh Chandra Shukla's case L supra), when moderation of marks was done at the inst. n,:e of High Court after alrnouncing list of candidates^qu;rlified for^'.riva voce test with a view to qualify those who fai ed brt fcr one or two marks rnly and a second list was brrrLrg6l c ut inciuding few more candidates for viva voce test. it is he ld tl^at addition of marks by way of moderation is illegal, urfair, arbitrary and invalid. It is also held that the Seler:tion Comrnittee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks wnich a candidate should obtain in aggregate, differert fr:nr the minimum already prescribed by the Rules.

¶72

in Durgacharan Misra's case (2 supra), it is held that minimL m qualifying marks for vrva vocS test ca n not be prescril)ed by the selecting body in the abserrce of such a provision in the statutory rules.

¶73

¶74

ls, J W.P.No.37494 of 2076

¶75

¶76

In Dr, Krushna Chandra Sahu & others v. State of Orissa & others (3 supra), it is held that selection criteria cannot be laid by the Selection Board or Selection Committee unless specifically authorized. It is also heid that the members oF the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee, do not have the^jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in that regard by the Rules made under Article 309.

¶77

in K. Maniusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another (4 supra), it is held that introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview aFter lhe entire selection process (consisting of written examination anC interview) was completed, wouid amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is cleai'ly impermissible. It is also held that power to prescribe minimum marks in the interview should be explicit and cannot be read by implication for the obvious reason that such Ceviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.

¶78

In Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (5 supra), it is held that the authority making ruies regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but iF minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before commencement of selection processr the authority concerned cannot, either during the selection process or after the selection^process/ add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marksⁱⁿ the interview. Changing rules of the game during selection^process or when it is over is not

)

,s, ) W.P.No.31494^{of 2076}

¶83

permissible. In this case, initially there rvas; prescription of minirrum marks for written test only and not for viva voce, however, minimum marks for viva voce w,as prescribed after writte rn test was over, it is held that same s no'- permissible, as introc uction of the requirement of nririnlum marks for inter\ iew after the entire selection process /vas completed, woulc amount to changing the rule,s of tl e game after the game was played.

¶84

In Mohd, Suhrab Khan v. Aligarh Mr,slim University & others (6 supra), it is held that gene-ally, dr:cision of Selection Comn,ittee, which is an expert body, should be respected but Selection Committee cannot (h.lnge seiection criteri,l/qualification midway.

¶85

In BeCanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Klrarr & others (7 supra), it is held that the selection prccess ies t3 be conducted Strictl) in accordance with stipulated s,elect orr p-ocedure which needs to be scrupulously maintained. Tl-ere :annot be any relaxal ion in terms and conditions rf acvortiiement unless such power is specifically reserved in rele!ant r-ules and/or in advertisement. Even where power c'f rel;rxation is or is not provided in relevant rules, it must bo mentioned in advertisement. Such power, if exerci:;ed srculc be given due publicity to ensure that those candidates w ho become eligible due to relaxation are afforded equal opport,unit)' to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in adve[tis,3ment without due pul:lication is contrary to mandate of equality' in Articles 14 and 16 oFthe Constitution.

¶86

¶87

ls, J W.P.No.31494 of 2076

¶88

¶89

in Bishnu Biswas & others v. Union of India & others (B supra) and in Sanjay K. Dixit & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others⁽⁹ supra), it is held that when recruitment rules provide only for written examination, interviews cannot be conducted.

¶90

in Nitesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh⁽¹⁰ supra), it is held that when scheme applicable to entire State is made under common^guidelines, alteration cf requirement by prescribing additional criteria only in respect o1' one District without such authority to do so, is unsustarnable.

¶91

In Ramjit Singh Kardam & others v. Sanjeev Kumar & others⁽¹¹ supra), it is held that the cancjidates who participates in the selection^process cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and^constrtution ot- Selection Committee. However, in the absence of any criteria being published by the Commission on basis whereof candidates were going to be selected and candidates^participated in the process and said criteria being^publishedfor the first time along with final result, candidates cannot be stopped from challenging the selection criteria and^process.

¶92

In Krishna Rai^(dead) through Legal Representatives v. Banaras Hindu University^through its Registrar & others (12 supra), it is held that^where law requires something to be done in a^{particular manner and} if it is not done in that manner, it would have no^existence in law. It is also held that if the Selection Board/Board of Examiners violates the criteria laid down under the Statutory^Rules, the^principle of estoppel is not applicable.

¶93

¶94

¶95

-L1..P.tlt,.]I19J ", ii rr,

¶96

-L-

¶97

In Suresh Kumar Lalitkumar patel & others v. State of Gujarat & others (13 supra), it is held tha. an ,tdvertisement made pursuant to a nc binds the ['at-ties lt has got air the trappings of a s)tification' prescription' urlle:;s it becomes contrary to either u rr,.'ut"ot' be brourlht ro.r; ; ;; "t^{an Act' A chang':' ir .nv,} can onlv ot an amendment arrd nothing erse. such an amendment "u'' if it is permissible can be tested on the touclrstone of Article 14 of the Constitution crf Irdia. All the afores. id judgments relied on by the lea -n:d counsel for petitioner are a pplicable to the facts of the present (tar;e, as the sum and substance rf the law laid down in those judgrrents is that the SeJecting BodyTBoard cannot change the method oi selection or cannot allocate weightage marks under different heads in the midstream, wiilrout rules Provide for that and rvithout prior intimation to th _. aspiring candidates, as has been do re in the present case.

¶98

On the othe rr fi6n61, the learned Senior Counsel aopr:aring for respondent No.3 has contended that the petitiorer, having participated in th( selection process which was rollovveci on earlier occasion also whelr she was selected as a Scientific Offi:er, cannot challenge the sam€ when she is not selected to the prerient post. In support of his cont lntions, the learned counsel for- resp,6n6sng N..3 has relied on the folrowing judgments:

¶99

ErE-

¶100

ls, J W-P.No.31494 of 2076

¶101

¶102

In Siya Ram v. Union of India and othersla, it is held thar it is not for the Court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview and sometimes, cnly interview is considered to be best method oF selection for certain pcsts.

¶103

in Rajya Sabha Secretariat and others v. Subhas Baloda and othersls, wherein it is held that if the canCidates are adequately communicated about allocation of marks for interview etc. by way of advertisement or cail letter, then such allocation oF marks is^permissible.

¶104

Both the above^judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, the candidates are not informed about the allocation of marks under different categories, till the iiate of written examination,^{power point presentation} and interview.

¶105

In Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others16, which relates to admissions in universities, where, an allegation is made that a member of Selection Committee was closely associated to a candidate.

¶106

This^judgment is also not applicable to the^present case, as it relates to admission of students into university.

¶107

In K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and anotherlT, wherein, it is held that the selection criteria has to be prescribed in advance and the rules of the game cannot be changed afterwards.

¶108

''^{(t998)2 scc556}

¶109

't^{(zo ti)i scct 6g}

¶110

'"^{( r984)2scc 63 l}

¶111

''^{(2008)iscc512}

¶112

¶113

¶114

JS, l w P-Ata-37494 of 20 16

¶115

This judgment is not applicable to the case of thr: t'es:ondents, but rather it is ap plicable to the case of the petitioner, as In the^present case, the metrod of selection was changed in the rridstream,

¶116

In Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and,)thers18, wherein, it is he d that it is for the interviewing cornrnitl-ee to take a general decision whether to allocate mar[:s under different heads o- to award marks in a single lot.

¶117

Though there is no dispute with regard to the lavr laid down in this judgment, in :he present case, the issue relEtes to noncommunicatio''r of the selection process in aclvance, to the candidates. There ought not have been any ,)bjection had the selection^process been informed to the candidate; ruell in advance. Therefore, thir;^judgment is also not helpful to the respondents.

¶118

In Srinivas K.Gouda vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences and othersle, wherein, while dealing w th the aspect of splitt ng up of marks for experience ancl g:ersonality after publication of advertisement, the Hon'ble S,tprerne Court has held that the Courts cannot sit in appeal over the decision of Selection Committee. The Court has to dec ine to interFere in the mal ter in the absence oF any c[allerrgr: to the entire selectior list.

¶119

This judgment is also not applicable to the fa,:ts of the tresent case, as in the pre:;ent case, there is no selection list ol' candidates, as

¶120

( r98 t)4 SCC 159

¶121

(2022) I SCC 49

¶122

f II lI i j i I

¶123

I I I

¶124

,,13 ls, l W.P-No.31494 ot 2076

¶125

there is only one post for which notification is issued and respondent No.3 is selecteci to the said post.

¶126

In the instant case, respondent No.1 did neither issue any administrative instructions nor did it supply the criteria on the basis of which suitability of the candidates was to be determined. The members of the selection committee, on their own, decided to adopt the modalities anci proceeded with the same. The members of the selection board are for that matter, any other selection committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in that regard. It is basically the function of the rule making authority to provide the basis for the selection. The selection committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In the instant case/ by necessary inference, there is no such power given to the selection committee to adopt its own methodology for selection. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. Thus, the selection committee does not^possess any inherent^power to lay down its own standards in addition to what was^prescribed under the rules. Admittedly, in the present notification, only three heads were prescribed i.e. written test, PPT and interview for selection to the

¶127

¶128

.:_,-

¶129

JS, l 14 W.P.^to.37494 of²⁰¹⁶

¶130

subject post of Assistant Director (PHM) Aqri. Eut the selectlon committee, n the midway i.e. after condu,:ting the written examination, laid down its own norms in adcjition to what was prescribed in the notification and went on with the said process. Therefore, allocating marks under different heads by the selection committee in addition to what was mentioned in the notification, that too, in the rridst of the selection process i.e. after conducting the written exam ination, would amount to changinc 1:he rules of the game after tre game has started, which i:; clearly impermissible. The power to prescribe marks under various heads srould be explicit, which is patently absent in the instant case. Nothing prevented respondent N r. 1 from laying down the methodology adopted by the selection con mittee in the notification itself . He ving not done so, respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to clango the rules of the game after t has started. Viewed thus, this; Court is of the considered opinion that the selection^process adopted by the selection corr mittee in the instant case is i legal and arbitrary and the same is li;rble to be set aside.

¶131

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of viith the following directions:

¶132

1 The selection process undertaken lty the selection comrlittee pursuant to notification \o.1 of 2016 is hereby set alide holding the same as illegal and erbitrary.

¶133

ls, l W.P.No.37494 of 2076

¶134

¶135

Consequently, the order dated 20.06.20L6 passed in F. No.2(310 )2016- rf. AD( PH M )- Estt, selecting respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant Director (PHM) Agri at respondent No.1-Institute and the consequential offe!- oF appointment vide F.No.2(310)2016-rf.AD(PHM)-Estt, dated 22.06.2A16 are herebv set aside.

¶136

3, The respondents are directed to issue a comprehensive notiFication for the post of Assistant Director (PHM) Aqri afresh containing all the norms for selection and select a candidate pursuant to the same basing on merit, within a period oF four(4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order"

¶137

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶138

ihere shall be no orders as to costs.

¶139

¶140

SD/- G. SIREE HA

¶141

ASSISTANT R

¶142

//TRUE COPY//

¶143

To, SECTION ICER

¶144

1 . The Secreta lndiaFarmers New WeDelhiry,lfa re, Unron of Ministrylndiaof AgriculDepature rtment and Farmersof Agriculture, CooWelfare , peration Government and of

¶145

1. The Assistant Director (PHM ) at NIPHM, Dr Ed puganti Sree Latha: Olo 500030National lnstit ute of Plant Health Management, Dajendra Nagar Hyderabad

¶146