DR JITENDRA KUMAR SAINI vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.1674/2025
Reserved on: 12.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Dr. Jitendra Kumar Saini,
S/o Late Sh. Krishna Kumar Saini,
Aged 51 years,
R/o 80 Saini |Enclave Vikas Marg, ner
Karkarduma, New Delhi -110092 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nilansh Gaur)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pension, Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi – 110001
2. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Through its Secretary,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. National Institute of TB and Respiratory Diseases,
Through the Administrative Officer,
Sri Aurobindo Marg, Near Qutub Minar,
New Delhi – 110030
4. Dr. Upasna Agarwal, Director,
National Institute of TB and Respiratory Diseases,
Sri Aurobindo Marg, Near Qutub Minar,
New Delhi – 110030
- Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. Geeta Luthra (Sr. Adv.) with Mr. Rishabh
Dahiya and Mr. R.K. Jain)
2026.09.02
LALIT
12:54:20
GOSAIN
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
2. Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman,
4. DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad DRM (P)
5. Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP
7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
2
ORDER
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi:
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Dr. Jitendra
Kumar Saini, completed his MBBS from LLRM Medical College,
Meerut in 1998 and MD in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
from King George Medical University, Lucknow in 2002. He thereafter
joined the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory
Diseases (NITRD), New Delhi, an autonomous institute under the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as Senior Resident. In 2007,
he was appointed as Chest Specialist (Grade-II) and was
subsequently promoted as Chest Specialist Grade-I in 2013. He was
granted Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in Level-14 in 2020. The
applicant claims to have an unblemished service record and several
academic and professional accomplishments.
2. On 13.12.2023, NITRD issued an advertisement inviting
applications for the post of Director, NITRD. The applicant, being
eligible under the applicable Recruitment Rules and the
advertisement, applied for the post and was shortlisted. He was
accordingly called for interview vide letter dated 29.05.2024, and
appeared before the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) on
12.06.2024.
3. The applicant thereafter came to know of the DoPT Office
Memorandum dated 31.08.2022 containing consolidated guidelines
for constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committees for posts under
the Central Government and autonomous/statutory bodies. As per
3
paragraph 3.1(vii), the Committee was required to be well balanced
and to include at least one, preferably two, expert members having
acknowledged expertise in the field of specialization relevant to the
post. Clause (viii) further stipulated that at least half of the members
should be from outside the concerned Ministry/Department,
including organisations under its administrative control.
4. The DoPT, vide OM dated 07.05.2024, approved the proposed
composition of the SCSC for selection to the post of Director, NITRD,
subject to compliance by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
with the requirements contained in the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022.
The SCSC ultimately comprised the Secretary, Health as Chairman,
Secretary, Department of Health Research, Director General of
Health Services and Director, AIIMS.
5. The applicant challenged the constitution of the SCSC by
representation dated 12.11.2024, contending that the Committee did
not comply with the DoPT guidelines, particularly the requirement
that at least half of its members should be from outside the
Ministry/Department. He further contended that the Director, AIIMS,
Dr. Srinivas M., nominated as an expert member, was a paediatric
surgeon and did not possess acknowledged expertise in the relevant
field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. According to the
applicant, in earlier selection processes for the post of Director,
NITRD, experts from the field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory
Diseases, namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad in 2012 and Dr. Randeep
Guleria in 2020, had been included in the SCSC.
4
6. The applicant also raised his grievance through the CPGRAMS
portal. The grievance and subsequent appeal were disposed of on the
premise that the Department of Health Research was an independent
entity and, therefore, its Secretary was not an internal member, while
AIIMS was an autonomous organisation and its Director was
consequently also not to be treated as an internal member. The
applicant disputed the said interpretation.
7. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, vide
communication dated 07.01.2025, reiterated that the Department of
Health Research was an independent entity and that AIIMS was an
autonomous organisation under the Ministry. It further justified the
nomination of the Director, AIIMS as an expert member on the
ground of his professional accomplishments and stated that he had
also been an expert member in previous selection processes.
8. Thereafter, NITRD, vide Office Order dated 27.03.2025,
appointed Dr. Upasna Agarwal as Director, NITRD, pursuant to the
recommendations of the SCSC. The applicant contends that the
appointment was made on the basis of a selection process conducted
by a Committee constituted contrary to the DoPT guidelines. He
further submits that the appointee belongs to the Department of
Medicine and not to the principal field of Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases, which, according to him, is the core field of
specialization of NITRD.
9. The applicant thereafter submitted several further
representations between February/March and April 2025, reiterating
his objections regarding the constitution of the SCSC and requesting
5
that the selection process be conducted afresh in accordance with
the DoPT guidelines and that the most suitable candidate be selected
for the post of Director, NITRD.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
constitution of the SCSC was contrary to the mandatory
requirements contained in the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022. It is
contended that the Committee consisted of four members and that,
contrary to clause 3.1(viii) of the said OM, all the members were
effectively drawn from within the Ministry/Department and
organisations under its administrative control. According to learned
counsel, the Department of Health Research was created as a
separate Department within the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare by amendment to the Government of India (Allocation of
Business) Rules, 1961, and therefore its Secretary could not be
treated as an external member merely because DHR functioned as a
separate Department. Similarly, AIIMS, being an autonomous
institute under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, could not,
according to the applicant, be treated as being outside the
administrative framework of the Ministry for purposes of the DoPT
guidelines.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the DoPT approval dated
07.05.2024 was expressly conditional upon compliance with the
requirements of the OM dated 31.08.2022. Therefore, once the
Ministry failed to comply with the stipulated requirement regarding
the composition of the SCSC, the very constitution of the Committee
6
stood vitiated and the selection process undertaken pursuant thereto
could not legally sustain.
12. It is further argued that the Committee also lacked an expert
member having acknowledged expertise in the field relevant to the
post of Director, NITRD. Learned counsel submits that the relevant
field is Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, whereas Dr. Srinivas
M., Director, AIIMS, who was nominated as an expert member, is
primarily a paediatric surgeon. According to the applicant, the
expertise required for selection to the post ought to have been in the
specialised field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases,
particularly having regard to the specialised functions of NITRD.
13. Learned counsel relies upon the previous selection processes to
submit that experts from the relevant field had earlier been included
in the SCSC, namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad in 2012 and Dr. Randeep
Guleria in 2020. It is contended that the departure from the
established practice, without any justification, further demonstrates
that the Committee was not constituted in accordance with the
governing guidelines.
14. Learned counsel also submits that NITRD is a premier and
specialised centre dealing with Tuberculosis and Respiratory
Diseases, including drug-resistant tuberculosis, tuberculosis with
HIV co-infection and co-morbidities, as well as COPD, bronchial
asthma, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, respiratory critical
care and obstructive sleep apnoea. In these circumstances, it is
urged that the person heading the Institute should possess
7
substantial expertise and experience in the principal field of
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.
15. It is further contended that the appointment of Dr. Upasna
Agarwal, who belongs to the Department of Medicine and not to the
principal speciality of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, is itself
indicative of the prejudice caused by the improperly constituted
SCSC. Learned counsel submits that the question is not merely one
of individual eligibility but of the fairness and integrity of the
selection process leading to the appointment.
16. Learned counsel submits that the response dated 07.01.2025
furnished by the Ministry does not satisfactorily answer the
applicant's objection regarding the status of DHR and AIIMS for the
purpose of determining whether the requirement of having at least
half the members from outside the Ministry/Department stood
fulfilled. It is argued that treating DHR and AIIMS as external
entities, despite their statutory/administrative relationship with the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, defeats the very purpose of
the DoPT guidelines requiring an independent and balanced selection
body.
17. It is lastly submitted that the selection and appointment in
question constitute State action and are consequently required to
conform to the constitutional requirement of fairness and non-
arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel
places reliance upon Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., (1991) 1
SCC 212 and A.P. Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2000) 1
SCC 600, to contend that every State action must withstand the test
8
of fairness and reasonableness and cannot be permitted to operate
arbitrarily.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 has submitted
the counter affidavit and submitted that the averments made by the
applicant, insofar as they are contrary to the record and the
applicable rules and instructions, are incorrect and are therefore
denied. It is submitted that the action of the answering respondents
has been taken strictly in accordance with the relevant rules,
regulations and instructions governing the selection and
appointment to the post of Director, NITRD.
19. Learned counsel submits that the applicant appeared in the
interview for the post of Director, NITRD on 12.06.2024 but did not
raise any objection regarding the constitution of the Search-cum-
Selection Committee (SCSC) either at the time of interview or
immediately thereafter. The applicant submitted his representation to
respondent No.1 only on 12.11.2024, after the process of shortlisting
had taken place. According to the respondents, the timing of the
representation clearly indicates that the objection was raised only
after the applicant became aggrieved by the outcome of the selection
process and was intended to obstruct the recruitment process. The
present Original Application is stated to be a consequence of the
applicant's non-selection.
20. It is further submitted that the composition of the SCSC was
duly approved by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
which is itself the authority that has issued the guidelines governing
the constitution of such Committees. Learned counsel submits that,
9
in terms of the DoPT guidelines dated 31.08.2022, the Committee
was required to be well balanced and to include at least one,
preferably two, expert members having acknowledged expertise in the
field of specialization relevant to the post. The guidelines also provide
that at least half the number of members should be from outside the
Ministry/Department administering the post, including organisations
under its administrative control.
21. Learned counsel submits that, as per the Allocation of
Business Rules issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare comprises two Departments, namely, the
Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Department of
Health Research. The Department of Health Research is, therefore, a
separate Department under the same Ministry. AIIMS, on the other
hand, is an autonomous body under the Department of Health and
Family Welfare. In this background, the Secretary, Department of
Health Research, being from a Department distinct from the
Department of Health and Family Welfare, was rightly treated as an
external member of the SCSC. The Director, AIIMS, was included in
the Committee as an Expert Member.
22. It is submitted that all relevant aspects concerning the
constitution of the SCSC and the applicant's grievance had already
been duly communicated to him by the respondents in response to
his grievance and the subsequent appeal. Learned counsel submits
that the selection was for the post of Director, NITRD and not for the
post of a specialist exclusively in the field of Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases. The eligibility conditions prescribed under the
10
Recruitment Rules and the advertisement permit candidates
possessing recognised postgraduate qualifications in Tuberculosis
and Respiratory Diseases, Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases or allied
specialties, including Clinical Pathology, Medicine, Microbiology,
Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Pulmonary Medicine, Preventive and Social
Medicine, Pediatrics, Anesthesia, Biochemistry, Radiology and
Hospital Administration, to be considered eligible for appointment to
the post.
23. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant's objection
regarding the expertise of the Director, AIIMS is misconceived. The
Director, AIIMS was nominated as an expert member because the
selection was for the post of Director, NITRD and not for a specialist
post in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. The Recruitment
Rules contemplate eligibility of persons belonging to various
disciplines and specialties. It is, therefore, submitted that there was
no requirement that the expert member of the SCSC must
necessarily be a specialist in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.
24. With regard to the appointment of Dr. Upasna Agarwal, learned
counsel submits that the allegations made by the applicant
questioning her competence are wholly inappropriate and without
basis. It is submitted that Dr. Upasna Agarwal was heading the
Department of Internal Medicine at NITRD and was also In-charge of
the Anti-Retroviral Treatment (ART) and Integrated Counselling and
Testing Centre (ICTC). She had also held the charge of Head,
Department of Hospital Administration with effect from 01.01.2023.
Learned counsel further submits that she is a TB/HIV expert for the
11
National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO), Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of India, and is a highly qualified and
competent medical professional fully eligible for appointment to the
post of Director, NITRD.
25. Learned counsel also disputes the applicant's assertion that,
for the first time in the history of the Institute, a person not
belonging to the field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases had
been appointed as Director. It is submitted that the qualifications of
the previous Directors of the Institute demonstrate that only three
out of the previous twelve Directors belonged to the field of
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. Three former Directors were
MD (Medicine), while the remaining Directors came from diverse
specialties, including MS (Surgery), MCh (Cardio-Thoracic and
Vascular Surgery), MS (Orthopaedics), DNB (Physical Rehabilitation),
MD (Paediatrics) and MD (Microbiology). Thus, according to the
respondents, the historical record of appointments itself belies the
applicant's contention that the Director of NITRD has invariably been
required to belong to the field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory
Diseases.
26. Learned counsel submits that the constitution of the SCSC
was not in violation of the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022. The DoPT had
approved the composition of the Committee, and the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare duly complied with the applicable
instructions. It is further submitted that the Director, AIIMS had also
been included as an expert member in previous selection processes.
The respondents therefore contend that there was no illegality or
12
procedural infirmity in his nomination as an expert member in the
present selection.
27. Learned counsel reiterates that the Department of Health
Research is a separate Department under the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare and, therefore, the Secretary, DHR was rightly treated
as an external member for the purposes of the SCSC. Likewise, the
Director, AIIMS, being the head of an autonomous institute under
the Ministry, was included as an expert member. It is submitted that
the requirement of the DoPT guidelines was thus duly complied with.
28. Learned counsel further submits that, under the Recruitment
Rules governing the post of Director, NITRD, officers possessing
postgraduate qualifications in any of the specified disciplines or
specialties are eligible for consideration. Consequently, the applicant
cannot claim an exclusive right or preference merely on the ground
that he belongs to the field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.
Eligibility for the post is governed by the Recruitment Rules and the
advertisement, and not by the personal preference of any individual
candidate.
29. It is also submitted that the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare fully complied with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated
07.05.2024 approving the composition of the SCSC. The conditional
approval granted by DoPT was duly acted upon and there was no
violation of the conditions stipulated therein. The respondents,
therefore, contend that the selection process, the recommendations
of the SCSC and the consequential appointment of Dr. Upasna
13
Agarwal as Director, NITRD are valid and in accordance with the
applicable rules and instructions.
30. Learned counsel finally submits that the applicant has failed to
establish any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural irregularity in the
constitution of the SCSC or in the selection and appointment of
respondent No.4. The applicant's objections, according to the
respondents, were raised only after he was not selected and do not
furnish any legally sustainable ground for interference with the
selection process. It is accordingly submitted that the applicant is
not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the Original Application
and that the OA deserves to be dismissed.
31. Counsel for the private respondent no.4 submitted that the
present Original Application is a classic case of a disgruntled
aspirant seeking to assail a duly approved selection and appointment
only after having failed to secure the post himself. The challenge
raised by the Applicant is legally untenable, factually misconceived
and procedurally unsustainable. The present Application is,
therefore, liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
32. At the outset, it is submitted that the Applicant himself
participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the
eligibility criteria as well as the constitution of the Selection
Committee. Having consciously participated in the process without
raising any objection and having thereafter failed to secure selection,
he cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the very
process in which he voluntarily participated. The Applicant is
accordingly estopped by his own conduct from questioning either the
14
selection process or the constitution of the Selection Committee. The
principle is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal
v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Dr. G. Sarana
v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585, wherein it has been
categorically held that a candidate who takes a calculated chance
and participates in a selection process without demur cannot
subsequently challenge the process or the constitution of the
Selection Committee merely because the result has gone against him.
The Applicant, having knowingly participated in the same selection
process, is thus precluded from assailing its validity after an
unsuccessful outcome.
33. It is further submitted that the Recruitment Rules governing
the post of Director, National Institute of Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases (NITRD), do not prescribe specialization
exclusively in Tuberculosis or Respiratory Medicine. The post is an
administrative-cum-leadership position and the applicable eligibility
conditions permit consideration of candidates possessing recognized
qualifications in other relevant clinical disciplines, including Internal
Medicine. Respondent No. 4, Dr. Upasna Agarwal, fully satisfies the
prescribed eligibility requirements. A true copy of the application
submitted by Respondent No. 4 for the post of Director, NITRD, New
Delhi is annexed as Annexure R/4-2. A true copy of the list of
shortlisted candidates for the said post is annexed as Annexure R/4-
7.
34. It is pertinent to submit that the Applicant became aware of his
non-selection only on 06.11.2024, when the candidates empanelled
15
for selection were asked to confirm their willingness to join on
deputation basis. It was only thereafter, on 21.11.2024, that the
Applicant submitted a complaint on CPGRAMS questioning the
constitution of the Selection Committee, followed subsequently by
the present Original Application. The chronology of events itself
demonstrates that the objections now sought to be raised were not
raised contemporaneously and did not exist as any genuine or bona
fide grievance prior to the Applicant learning of his non-selection.
The grievance thus appears to have arisen only after the selection
process had concluded against him. The conduct of the Applicant is
consequently hit not only by the principle of acquiescence but also
reflects an attempt to reopen a concluded selection process on
account of personal dissatisfaction with the result. A true copy of the
communication issued by the Ministry of Health to the candidates
empanelled for selection seeking confirmation of their willingness to
join on deputation, vide Ministry of Health letter No.
V.21022/06/2019-CCD/TB (FTS-8015897) dated 06.11.2024, is
annexed as Annexure R/4-1.
35. The contention raised by the Applicant in Para 4.4 regarding
the constitution of the Selection Committee is wholly misconceived
and proceeds upon an erroneous interpretation of the DoPT
guidelines. The stipulation that “preferably one of the members
should have the relevant expertise in the field of specialization
relevant to the post” cannot be construed to mean that the
Committee must necessarily contain a clinical specialist exclusively
in Tuberculosis or Pulmonary Medicine. The requirement has to be
understood in the context of the nature of the post and the overall
16
competence of the Committee to assess the suitability of candidates
for the position sought to be filled. In the present case, the post was
that of Director of a premier national institute and consequently
required assessment of not merely narrow clinical specialization but
also leadership, institutional administration, academic vision,
managerial ability and overall suitability.
36. One of the members of the Committee was Prof. M. Srinivas,
Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, a
distinguished clinician and administrator heading one of the premier
medical institutions of national importance. His extensive academic,
clinical and administrative credentials and experience in institutional
governance rendered him fully competent to assess the overall
suitability of candidates for a senior position such as Director,
NITRD. His inclusion in the Committee provided substantial
independent expertise and evaluative authority. The Committee, as
duly constituted, possessed the requisite professional standing and
institutional experience to assess the candidates on all relevant
parameters. The Applicant’s attempt to read the DoPT guidelines as
mandating the presence of a specialist exclusively in Tuberculosis is
therefore neither supported by the language of the guidelines nor by
the nature of the post.
37. It is further submitted that the appointment of Respondent No.
4 was made through a duly approved and transparent process on
deputation, after obtaining the requisite cadre clearance from the
Central Health Service and approval of the competent authorities,
17
including the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. There is no
procedural irregularity whatsoever in the appointment.
38. The historical record of appointments to the post of Director,
NITRD, also completely negatives the Applicant’s contention that the
post has necessarily and exclusively been occupied by specialists in
Tuberculosis or Pulmonary Medicine. The past Directors include Dr.
R.C. Jain, M.S. Surgery, Founder Director; Dr. R.K. Srivastava, M.S.
Orthopedics, Officiating Director; Dr. D.C. Jain, M.D. Medicine, DM
Neurology, Officiating Director; Dr. D. Behera, M.D. Medicine,
Regular Director; Dr. R.K. Dewan, M.S. Surgery, M.Ch. CVTS,
Regular Director; Dr. Sangeeta Sharma, M.D. Pediatrics, Officiating
Director; and Dr. Manpreet Bhalla, M.D. Microbiology, Officiating
Director. The historical institutional practice therefore clearly
demonstrates that appointment to the post of Director has never
been confined exclusively to one particular specialty. A true copy of
the table containing the details of past Directors of NITRD is annexed
as Annexure R/4-8.
39. Respondent No. 4 has, in any event, an extensive and
distinguished medical, academic and administrative career spanning
more than two decades at premier national institutions. Since 2004,
she has been associated with NITRD, New Delhi, and presently serves
as Senior Specialist in the Special Administrative Grade. She has
also headed the Department of Internal Medicine and the
Department of Hospital Administration and has discharged extensive
clinical, academic, administrative, research and policy-related
responsibilities.
18
40. As Head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Respondent
No. 4 has supervised OPD, ICU and inpatient services and has
handled complicated respiratory and systemic illnesses, including
TB-related complications. As Head of Hospital Administration, she
has been responsible for institutional operations, infrastructure,
procurement, staffing, patient safety mechanisms and quality control
in a premier chest disease hospital. She has also served as
Chairperson of the Medical Board and has been responsible for
evaluating and certifying new employees and overseeing institutional
health protocols.
41. Respondent No. 4 has also served as Principal Investigator and
Co-Investigator in several TB and TB-HIV research projects funded
by reputed agencies including the Indian Council of Medical
Research and the Department of Biotechnology, as well as projects
undertaken in collaboration with AIIMS and international
universities. She served as Organizing Secretary of STOP HIV 2024,
an international medical conference dealing with HIV treatment and
TB-HIV integration. She has also served as Technical Lead and
Master Facilitator for e-NISCHIT, the National Initiative for
Strengthening Collaboration between HIV and TB, a virtual case-
based learning platform covering 178 HIV clinics across 13 States
and supported by NACO, CTD, CDC and ECHO India.
42. Respondent No. 4 has contributed to important national
guidelines and standard operating procedures, including the National
Guidelines for HIV Care and Treatment, 2021; Guidelines on
Prevention and Management of TB in People Living with HIV at ART
19
Centres, 2016; Operational Manual for Isoniazid Preventive Therapy,
2016; and the TB-HIV Module for ART Centre Staff, 2010.
43. Her contribution to medical education and training is equally
significant. She has served as teaching faculty for the DNB
Respiratory Medicine programme at NITRD since 2004 and has acted
as trainer and facilitator for IUATLD/WHO TB programmes as well as
the National AIDS and TB Control Programmes. She has guided
postgraduate and undergraduate medical students in clinical and
research activities, including thesis work concerning TB-HIV
coinfection and chest-related complications. She has also regularly
participated as a guest speaker and panelist at national and
international conferences dealing with tuberculosis, respiratory
infections and public health.
44. Respondent No. 4 possesses an MD in Internal Medicine and a
PhD from IIT Delhi. Her doctoral research specifically concerned
diagnostic approaches and clinical data analysis in HIV-infected TB
patients at NITRD, thereby further demonstrating her substantial
exposure to pulmonary infections and their systemic implications.
She has handled numerous cases involving drug-resistant TB,
pulmonary complications and TB-HIV coinfection and has authored
more than 25 peer-reviewed publications in reputed medical
journals, including BMC Infectious Diseases, Indian Journal of
Tuberculosis and Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease. She has also
contributed chapters to standard textbooks concerning pulmonary
TB, diabetes and TB, and HIV-associated respiratory diseases. She
has further served as a TB/HIV expert for the National AIDS Control
20
Organization, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of
India. Her detailed Curriculum Vitae is annexed as Annexure R/4-3
(Colly), while the Office Orders evidencing her role as a TB/HIV
expert are annexed as Annexure R/4-4 (Colly).
45. The service record of Respondent No. 4 is further supported by
consistently outstanding assessments in her Annual Confidential
Reports. She has throughout maintained an unblemished service
record and has never faced any disciplinary proceedings.
46. The Applicant’s attempt to portray his own service progression
as demonstrating exceptional superiority is also misconceived. The
averments concerning his educational background and service
history are matters of record and require no specific response.
However, it is denied that the promotions referred to by him, namely
from Chest Specialist Grade-II to Grade-I and thereafter to the Senior
Administrative Grade, constitute exceptional achievements
distinguishing him from similarly situated officers. Such promotions
are granted in accordance with the applicable service rules and are
ordinarily available to eligible medical officers upon fulfillment of the
prescribed conditions. Within NITRD itself, as many as 28 doctors
have received the same promotions and the Applicant stands at
Serial No. 21 in the relevant seniority list. The advertisement was
issued by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable
Recruitment Rules and DoPT guidelines. Significantly, the Applicant
raised no objection to the eligibility criteria or the terms of the
advertisement at the relevant stage.
21
47. Likewise, the Applicant’s challenge to the shortlisting and
interview process is devoid of merit. The Applicant was duly
shortlisted and called for interview held on 12.06.2024 along with
other eligible candidates in accordance with the criteria contained in
the advertisement. No objection was raised by him at that stage
either with respect to the constitution of the Selection Committee or
the criteria adopted for shortlisting. The challenge surfaced only after
the Applicant failed to secure selection.
48. The allegation that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was
constituted in contravention of the DoPT guidelines dated 31.08.2022
is specifically denied. The SCSC was constituted with the approval of
the competent authority, in consultation with DoPT, and in
compliance with the applicable provisions of the said guidelines. The
nomination of expert members was validly made and there was no
requirement that the Committee must necessarily contain a
specialist in Tuberculosis.
49. It is admitted that DoPT accorded approval to the composition
of the SCSC vide OM dated 07.05.2024, subject to adherence to the
guidelines dated 31.08.2022. The said condition was duly complied
with. The SCSC included external expert members and its
composition was thereafter accepted by the competent authorities,
including the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The allegation
of non-compliance is therefore unsupported by any substantive
material.
50. The Applicant’s contention that all four members of the SCSC
were internal members of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
22
is factually incorrect. While the Secretary (Health) and the Director
General of Health Services are officers within the Ministry, the
Secretary, Department of Health Research, is also the Director
General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, an apex
autonomous organization under the Government of India. He holds
the rank of Secretary to the Government of India in his own right and
functions in relation to ICMR independently of the regular Central
Health Services cadre.
51. Similarly, Prof. M. Srinivas, Director, AIIMS, New Delhi, heads
an autonomous institute of national importance established under
an Act of Parliament. AIIMS has an independent statutory
governance structure and does not form part of the regular
departmental cadre of the Ministry. Accordingly, both the Director,
AIIMS and the Director General, ICMR/Secretary, DHR were rightly
treated as external members for the purposes of the DoPT OM dated
31.08.2022. The composition of the SCSC thus satisfied the
requirement concerning the presence of members from outside the
Ministry/Department.
52. The Applicant’s reliance upon alleged past practice or his
asserted preference for pulmonologists in earlier selections has no
legal bearing upon the validity of the present selection. Past
appointments cannot override the applicable Recruitment Rules or
create an eligibility condition which the Rules themselves do not
prescribe. The Applicant’s attempt to equate institutional association
with departmental control and thereby classify independent statutory
or autonomous institutions as internal members is legally untenable.
23
53. The Ministry, in its formal response dated 07.01.2025, has also
clarified the status of AIIMS and ICMR and the classification of their
representatives for the purposes of the Committee’s composition. The
Applicant’s allegations have thus already been considered and
answered by the competent authority. The repetition of the same
allegations in the present proceedings does not create any fresh or
legally sustainable issue.
54. The allegation that the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was
irregular or contrary to the interests of NITRD is equally
misconceived. Respondent No. 4 possesses more than two decades of
institutional experience, including extensive leadership experience as
Head of Internal Medicine and Hospital Administration, and has
made significant contributions to national TB-HIV programmes,
research, medical education and institutional administration. The
Recruitment Rules do not reserve the post of Director for any
particular department or specialty. Respondent No. 4 was
accordingly fully eligible and was considered along with other eligible
candidates on the basis of merit.
55. The further contention that Respondent No. 4 belongs to a
“supporting department” and that only doctors from the Department
of TB and Respiratory Diseases could be appointed as Director is
factually and legally incorrect. Internal Medicine is a core clinical and
academic discipline and cannot, by any stretch, be described as a
supporting department of NITRD. Respondent No. 4 holds an MD in
Internal Medicine and a PhD from IIT Delhi and has headed both
Internal Medicine and Hospital Administration at NITRD for a
24
substantial period. Her qualifications and experience fully satisfy the
eligibility conditions prescribed for the post.
56. The historical record of NITRD Directors, as already set out
hereinabove, conclusively demonstrates that persons belonging to
departments other than TB and Respiratory Medicine have also
occupied the post. The Applicant’s assertion that the post has
historically been confined to a particular specialty is therefore
contrary to the official record and cannot furnish any basis for
invalidating the present appointment.
57. The mere fact that the Applicant submitted representations or
continues to disagree with the outcome of the selection cannot
establish any illegality, procedural defect or violation of his rights.
The Committee was lawfully constituted, the Applicant was given a
fair opportunity to participate in the selection process, all eligible
candidates were considered, and Respondent No. 4 was selected by
the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable
procedure. No vested or enforceable right of the Applicant has been
infringed.
58. The Applicant’s grounds may also be dealt with individually. As
regards Ground 5.1, the same is denied in toto. The SCSC was
constituted in full compliance with the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022.
The Secretary, DHR/Director General, ICMR and the Director, AIIMS
were validly treated as external members, and there was no illegality
in the composition of the Committee.
25
59. The challenge to the nomination of the Director, AIIMS as an
expert member is unfounded. AIIMS is an autonomous statutory
institute of national importance with an independent governance
structure, and the nomination of its Director was duly approved by
the competent authorities. The composition of the SCSC satisfied the
requirement regarding external members and did not infringe Articles
14 or 16 of the Constitution.
60. The Recruitment Rules prescribe the requisite qualifications
and experience but do not confine the post to any particular clinical
specialty. Respondent No. 4 possesses more than two decades of
experience at NITRD, extensive TB/HIV clinical and policy
experience, substantial institutional administrative experience and
the requisite academic qualifications. Her selection was made on
merit by the duly constituted Committee and approved by the
competent authorities, including the ACC.
61. The approval granted by DoPT was subject to adherence to the
guidelines dated 31.08.2022, and the said requirement was duly
complied with. The competent authorities verified the composition
and procedure before finalization of the selection. The Applicant’s
grievance is essentially a consequence of his non-selection and does
not disclose any actionable illegality.
62. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in N.G. Desai v. Government of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 7322/2002, has recognized that
judicial review in matters relating to selection by expert bodies is
limited and does not extend to an appellate re-assessment of the
comparative merits of candidates. The Court declined to undertake
26
an exercise of comparing qualifications or institutions where an
expert committee had evaluated the candidates and made its
recommendation. The same principle squarely applies in the present
case. The Selection Committee comprised senior officials and persons
possessing the requisite expertise and institutional experience, and
evaluated the candidates on relevant parameters including academic
credentials, administrative experience, leadership qualities,
institutional vision and domain knowledge. In the absence of any
demonstrated mala fides, perversity or procedural illegality, there is
no warrant for this Hon’ble Tribunal to substitute its own
assessment for that of the duly constituted expert body.
63. Respondent No. 4 had also submitted a comprehensive Vision
Document in response to the Committee’s requirement, setting out
strategic, academic, administrative and institutional objectives for
NITRD and providing a roadmap for the development of the Institute
in consonance with national public health priorities. A true copy of
the PPT presentation containing the Vision of Respondent No. 4 for
NITRD is annexed as Annexure R/4-6.
64. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
65. The main issue in the present Original Application is whether
the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) constituted for selection
to the post of Director, National Institute of Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases (NITRD), New Delhi, was constituted in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide Office Memorandum dated
27
31.08.2022 and, if not, whether the selection and appointment of
respondent No. 4 can be sustained.
66. The applicant has mainly challenged the constitution of the
SCSC on two grounds. First, according to him, the Committee did not
satisfy paragraph 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022, which
requires that at least half of the members of the Committee should be
from outside the Ministry/Department administering the post,
including organisations under its administrative control. Secondly,
he has contended that the Committee did not have an expert member
having acknowledged expertise in the field relevant to the post,
namely Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.
67. The respondents, however, have submitted that the Committee
was properly constituted and its composition had been approved by
the DoPT. It has been contended that the Secretary, Department of
Health Research (DHR), was an external member because DHR is a
separate Department under the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare. It has further been submitted that the Director, AIIMS was
included as an expert member because of his professional and
administrative experience and position as the head of a premier
medical institution. The respondents have also argued that the
applicant participated in the selection process without raising any
objection and challenged the constitution of the Committee only after
he was not selected.
68. We may first consider the requirement relating to the
composition of the Committee. Paragraph 3.1(vii) of the DoPT OM
dated 31.08.2022 provides that the Search-cum-Selection Committee
28
should be well balanced and should include at least one, preferably
two, expert members having acknowledged expertise in the field of
specialization relevant to the post. Paragraph 3.1(viii) further
provides that at least half of the members should be from outside the
Ministry/Department administering the post, including organisations
under its administrative control.
69. These requirements have been prescribed to ensure that the
selection is fair, balanced and is not confined only to persons
belonging to the administrative set-up of the concerned Ministry or
Department. The requirement of outside members also seeks to bring
an element of independence and objectivity into the selection
process.
70. It is not in dispute that the DoPT, vide communication dated
07.05.2024, approved the proposed composition of the SCSC subject
to compliance with the requirements contained in the DoPT OM
dated 31.08.2022. Therefore, the approval granted by the DoPT was
not an unconditional approval. The Ministry was required to ensure
that the final composition of the Committee complied with the said
guidelines. The SCSC consisted of the Secretary, Health; Secretary,
Department of Health Research; Director General of Health Services;
and Director, AIIMS. The respondents have treated the Secretary,
DHR as an outside member on the ground that DHR is a separate
Department under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. We are
unable to accept this submission.
71. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant
produced a document downloaded from the official website of the
29
Department of Health Research. The document itself states that the
Department of Health Research was created under the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare through an amendment to the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, on
17.09.2007. It further states that the Department is headed by a
Secretary with two Joint Secretaries assisting him.
72. More importantly, the document states that the Department
works in accordance with the CCS Rules and instructions issued by
the Government from time to time. It also specifically states that the
Department does not have exclusive rules or regulations of its own
and that "Posting and Transfer of staff is administered by the M/o
H&FW." This statement made by the Department itself is important.
It shows that, although DHR is a separate Department for the
purposes of allocation of Government business, it continues to
function under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and its
service matters, including posting and transfer of its staff, are
administered by the same Ministry.
73. The document further sets out the mandate of DHR. It records,
inter alia, that the Department is responsible for promotion and
coordination of basic, applied and clinical research in the areas of
medicine, health and biomedical sciences; promotion of research
governance; advanced training in research areas; international
cooperation in medical and health research; technical support in
dealing with epidemics and natural calamities; coordination between
organisations and institutes under the Central and State
30
Governments; and matters relating to the Indian Council of Medical
Research.
74. Thus, the material produced by the applicant does not show
that DHR is an organisation completely independent of the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare. On the contrary, it shows that DHR
forms part of the administrative structure of the Ministry and that
important service matters relating to its staff are administered by the
Ministry.
75. In our view, for deciding whether a member is "from outside
the Ministry/Department administering the post", the substance of
the administrative relationship has to be considered and not merely
the fact that the organisation or Department has a separate name or
separate allocation of business.
76. The post in the present case is that of Director, NITRD, which
is under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Secretary,
Health and the Director General of Health Services are admittedly
part of the Ministry's administrative structure. The Secretary, DHR,
although heading a separate Department, is also heading a
Department which, according to its own official website, is under the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and whose posting and
transfer matters are administered by that Ministry. Therefore, the
Secretary, DHR cannot, in our considered view, be treated as an
outside member merely because DHR is a separately identified
Department under the Allocation of Business Rules.
31
77. The respondents have also relied upon the status of AIIMS and
have submitted that its Director should be treated as an outside
member because AIIMS is an autonomous institution. This
submission also cannot be accepted.
78. Paragraph 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM does not merely refer to
persons outside the Ministry or Department. It specifically includes
organisations under the administrative control of the Ministry or
Department. Therefore, an organisation cannot be treated as an
outside organisation merely because it is described as autonomous
or has been established under a statute, if it continues to remain
under the administrative control of the concerned Ministry.
79. AIIMS is undoubtedly an institution of national importance
and has an autonomous governance structure. However, its
autonomous status does not mean that it has no administrative
relationship with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The
respondents themselves have described AIIMS as an autonomous
organisation under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
80. Therefore, for the limited purpose of applying paragraph
3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM, the Director, AIIMS cannot be treated as an
outside member merely because AIIMS is an autonomous institution.
81. If the composition of the Committee is examined on this basis,
the respondents have not been able to show that at least half of the
four members of the SCSC were from outside the
Ministry/Department administering the post, including organisations
32
under its administrative control. The requirement contained in
paragraph 3.1(viii) was therefore not complied with.
82. The fact that DoPT had approved the proposed composition of
the Committee does not alter this position. The approval dated
07.05.2024 was specifically subject to compliance with the DoPT
guidelines dated 31.08.2022. Such conditional approval cannot be
treated as permission to disregard any of the conditions contained in
those guidelines.
83. The respondents have strongly contended that the applicant
participated in the selection process without raising any objection
and, having failed to secure selection, cannot now be permitted to
challenge the selection process or the constitution of the Search-
cum-Selection Committee.
84. There can be no dispute regarding the general principle that a
candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge
of the procedure and takes a calculated chance cannot ordinarily
challenge the process merely because the result is not favourable to
him. The judgments relied upon by respondent No. 4 in Madan Lal v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir , (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Dr. G. Sarana
v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585, lay down this well-
settled principle.
85. However, the principle is not absolute and has to be applied
having regard to the nature of the challenge raised and the facts of
each case. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
33
Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
9482 of 2019 , particularly paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 thereof. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the doctrine of
acquiescence in the context of a challenge to a selection process,
recognised that the principle cannot be applied mechanically in every
case merely because a candidate participated in the selection
process. The Court examined the distinction between a challenge
based solely on dissatisfaction with the result and a challenge
alleging an illegality or arbitrariness going to the root of the selection
process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a candidate may
not be disentitled from challenging a selection process where the
challenge is based on an illegality which affects the fairness or
legality of the process itself. The mere participation of a candidate in
the selection process cannot, in every situation, cure a fundamental
defect or validate an action which is otherwise contrary to the
applicable rules and instructions.
86. The principle emerging from paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of Dr.
(Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
9482 of 2019 is that the doctrine of acquiescence cannot be invoked
in a mechanical manner where the challenge concerns an illegality
going to the root of the selection process. The nature of the objection,
the stage at which it is raised and whether the alleged defect affects
the fairness and legality of the process are relevant considerations.
87. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we
find that the challenge raised by the applicant is not merely directed
against his non-selection or against the comparative assessment of
34
candidates by the SCSC. The applicant has questioned the very
constitution of the SCSC on the ground that it did not comply with
the mandatory requirements contained in the DoPT Office
Memorandum dated 31.08.2022.
88. The applicant was interviewed on 12.06.2024. He subsequently
raised the issue regarding the constitution of the Committee through
his representation dated 12.11.2024 and pursued the matter
through the CPGRAMS portal. The appointment of respondent No. 4
was thereafter made on 27.03.2025. Thus, the objection regarding
the constitution of the Committee was raised before the final
appointment was made.
89. More importantly, the present challenge goes to the root of the
matter. The applicant is not asking this Tribunal to compare his
qualifications with those of respondent No. 4 or to hold that he was
more meritorious than the selected candidate. His challenge is to the
legality of the constitution of the very body which conducted the
selection.
90. A candidate may be estopped from challenging a known
procedure merely because he participated in it and subsequently
failed. However, participation in a selection process cannot
automatically validate a Selection Committee which is alleged to have
been constituted contrary to the applicable mandatory instructions.
If the constitution of the Selection Committee itself is contrary to the
governing rules or guidelines, such a defect cannot necessarily be
cured merely because a candidate participated in the selection.
35
91. The present case, therefore, has to be examined in the light of
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major)
Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9482 of
2019 , and not merely by applying the principle of acquiescence in a
mechanical manner.
92. In the facts of the present case, particularly when the DoPT
itself had granted approval to the proposed composition of the SCSC
subject to compliance with the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022, we are of
the considered view that the objection regarding acquiescence
cannot, by itself, defeat the applicant's challenge without examining
whether the Committee was actually constituted in accordance with
the mandatory requirements of the said OM.
93. If, upon such examination, the constitution of the Committee
is found to be contrary to the governing instructions, the mere
participation of the applicant in the interview would not by itself cure
such illegality.
94. Thus, while the objection of the respondents regarding delay,
acquiescence and participation has been duly considered, the same
cannot be accepted as an absolute bar to the present Original
Application. The challenge raised by the applicant concerns the
legality of the constitution of the SCSC itself and is required to be
examined on merits in accordance with the applicable rules,
instructions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
95. We now come to the second issue, namely, the requirement of
an expert member. We do not agree with the applicant that the
36
expert member must necessarily be a specialist exclusively in
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. The post of Director, NITRD
is not merely a post of a clinical specialist. The Director is required to
perform academic, administrative, research, clinical and managerial
functions. Therefore, the expert member need not necessarily possess
exactly the same postgraduate qualification as the candidates.
96. At the same time, paragraph 3.1(vii) cannot be treated as an
empty formality. It requires the Committee to include at least one,
preferably two, expert members having acknowledged expertise in the
field of specialization relevant to the post.
97. NITRD is a specialised national institute dealing primarily with
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. Therefore, while constituting
its Search-cum-Selection Committee, due importance was required to
be given to the specialised field in which the Institute principally
functions.
98. The respondents have relied upon the professional standing
and administrative experience of the Director, AIIMS. There is no
doubt that the Director, AIIMS is a distinguished medical
professional and administrator. However, the issue before us is not
whether he is an eminent person. The issue is whether his
nomination satisfied the specific requirement of an expert having
acknowledged expertise relevant to the specialised field of NITRD.
99. The applicant has pointed out that in earlier selections for the
post of Director, NITRD, experts from the field of Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases, namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad in 2012 and Dr.
37
Randeep Guleria in 2020, had been included in the Selection
Committee.
100. The respondents have not placed sufficient material before us
to show that, while constituting the present Committee, any person
having acknowledged expertise specifically in the field of
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases was considered or included in
order to satisfy the requirement contained in paragraph 3.1(vii).
101. The requirement of an expert member has a definite purpose. It
is intended to ensure that the Committee has the benefit of
specialised knowledge while assessing the suitability of candidates
for a specialised institution. It cannot, therefore, be treated as a mere
formality.
102. We are conscious that this Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over
the assessment made by an expert Selection Committee. We also do
not propose to compare the qualifications or relative merits of the
applicant and respondent No. 4. The Tribunal is not required to
decide who was the better candidate.
103. The present issue is different. It concerns the legality of the
constitution of the Selection Committee itself. Judicial review of the
constitution of a Selection Committee is different from judicial review
of the comparative assessment made by such Committee.
104. The respondents have also argued that the Recruitment Rules
do not restrict the post of Director, NITRD only to persons
specialising in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. According to
them, candidates having qualifications in various disciplines,
38
including Internal Medicine, are eligible. There is no difficulty in
accepting this proposition.
105. The Recruitment Rules determine the eligibility of candidates.
If the Rules permit candidates from different disciplines to apply, the
applicant cannot claim that only a specialist in Tuberculosis and
Respiratory Diseases could be appointed as Director.
106. We therefore make it clear that we are not holding that
respondent No. 4 was ineligible for the post merely because she
possesses an MD in Internal Medicine. We are also not holding that
the post of Director, NITRD is reserved exclusively for a person
belonging to the field of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.
However, the eligibility of a candidate and the legality of the
constitution of the Selection Committee are two separate matters. A
candidate may be fully eligible for the post, but his or her selection
must nevertheless be made by a Committee constituted in
accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines.
107. The respondents have also relied upon the past appointments
to contend that persons from different medical specialties have
previously held the post of Director, NITRD. This may be relevant for
deciding whether the post is confined to one particular specialty. It
does not, however, answer the question whether the SCSC in the
present case was properly constituted in accordance with the DoPT
guidelines.
108. We have also considered the submissions made on behalf of
respondent No. 4 regarding her qualifications and experience. It has
39
been submitted that she has extensive experience in Internal
Medicine, Hospital Administration, TB-HIV programmes, research,
teaching and institutional administration. It has also been pointed
out that she has worked at NITRD for many years and has
contributed to various national programmes and research projects.
109. These credentials may well demonstrate that respondent No. 4
is a competent and eligible person for the post. We express no
opinion on her personal competence or comparative merit.
110. The issue before us is not whether respondent No. 4 was
capable of holding the post. The issue is whether the process through
which she was selected was conducted by a Committee constituted in
accordance with the governing instructions.
111. The requirement of fairness applies not only to the final
decision but also to the decision-making process. When the
Government has prescribed guidelines for the constitution of a
Search-cum-Selection Committee and the approval of the DoPT has
been granted subject to compliance with those guidelines, the
authorities are required to follow them.
112. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State
of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 and A.P. Aggarwal v. Government of NCT
of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 600 has emphasised that State action must
satisfy the requirements of fairness and reasonableness and should
not be arbitrary.
113. In the present case, the official document produced by the
applicant during the hearing assumes importance. The Department
40
of Health Research itself states that it was created under the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare. It further states that its functioning is
governed by CCS Rules and Government instructions and, most
importantly, that "Posting and Transfer of staff is administered by the
M/o H&FW."
114. This statement clearly shows that DHR continues to have a
substantial administrative relationship with the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare. Therefore, merely because DHR is separately
identified as a Department under the Allocation of Business Rules,
its Secretary cannot automatically be treated as an outside member
for the purposes of paragraph 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM.
115. Similarly, the autonomous status of AIIMS cannot by itself
make its Director an outside member when paragraph 3.1(viii)
specifically covers organisations under the administrative control of
the concerned Ministry or Department.
116. On a combined consideration of the above facts, we are
satisfied that the respondents have failed to establish that the
composition of the SCSC satisfied the requirement that at least half
of its members should be from outside the Ministry/Department
administering the post, including organisations under its
administrative control.
117. The respondents have also failed to satisfactorily demonstrate
compliance with the requirement relating to the inclusion of an
expert member having acknowledged expertise relevant to the
specialised field of NITRD.
41
118. These defects cannot be treated as merely technical or
insignificant. The composition of the Search-cum-Selection
Committee is the starting point of the selection process. The purpose
of prescribing outside members and experts is to ensure an
independent, balanced and informed assessment of the candidates.
119. Once the Committee itself was not constituted in accordance
with the governing guidelines, the selection made by such Committee
cannot be sustained merely because the candidates were otherwise
eligible or because the person ultimately selected possessed the
required qualifications.
120. We accordingly hold that the Search-cum-Selection Committee
constituted for selection to the post of Director, NITRD was not in
conformity with paragraphs 3.1(vii) and 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM
dated 31.08.2022. Consequently, the conditional approval granted by
the DoPT vide communication dated 07.05.2024 cannot validate the
constitution of the Committee.
121. Since the selection was made by a Committee which was not
constituted in accordance with the applicable guidelines, the
recommendations made by the said Committee and the
consequential appointment of respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to
stand.
122. We again clarify that this finding is not a reflection upon the
personal qualifications, competence or integrity of respondent No. 4.
Nor are we expressing any opinion as to whether the applicant or
respondent No. 4 is more meritorious. The appointment is being set
42
aside because the selection process was conducted through a
Committee whose composition did not comply with the applicable
DoPT guidelines.
123. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The selection
and consequential appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of
Director, NITRD, pursuant to the recommendations of the Search-
cum-Selection Committee constituted for the said selection, are
hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to undertake the
selection process afresh in accordance with the applicable
Recruitment Rules, the advertisement and the DoPT OM dated
31.08.2022. The fresh Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be
constituted strictly in accordance with paragraphs 3.1(vii) and
3.1(viii) of the said OM. While constituting the Committee, the
respondents shall ensure the requisite representation of members
from outside the Ministry/Department administering the post,
including organisations under its administrative control, as well as
the presence of expert members having acknowledged expertise
relevant to the field of specialization of NITRD. The applicant,
respondent No. 4 and all other candidates who are otherwise eligible
under the applicable Recruitment Rules shall be at liberty to
participate in the fresh selection process, subject to fulfillment of the
prescribed conditions.
124. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as
to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
43
/lg/