Applicants’ retirement rendered the challenge to the Director-selection process infructuous.

JIPMER issued Notification No. Admin.I(29)/2017 dated 18 November 2017 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Director, prescribing qualifications including a high postgraduate qualification, at least ten years’ teaching or research experience, twenty-five years’ professional standing, and extensive practical and administrative experience.

The applicants applied for the post and claimed to satisfy the notified qualifications.

They challenged, inter alia, the subsequent requirement that publications be indexed in PubMed, the constitution of a Screening Committee by the Deputy Director, and the constitution of a Search-cum-Selection Committee by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The applicants contended that these actions were contrary to the JIPMER Act, the JIPMER Rules, 2008, and the recruitment notification, and that the Central Government was merely an approving or appellate authority while JIPMER was the appointing authority.

After their representation was not considered, the applicants initially approached the Madras High Court, which granted an order of status quo; the writ petition was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

During hearing before the Tribunal, counsel for the applicants submitted that all applicants had retired and that the relief sought had consequently become infructuous.

Whether the additional requirement of submitting publications indexed in PubMed, allegedly imposed after issuance of the recruitment notification, was legally valid.

Whether the Deputy Director had authority to constitute the Screening Committee for the selection process.

Whether the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had authority to constitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of the Director of JIPMER.

Whether the OA had become infructuous upon the applicants’ retirement and therefore required closure without adjudication on merits.

Rule 8(2) of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Rules, 2008, under which appointment to the post of Director is made by JIPMER with the approval of the Central Government.

The Tribunal also considered the qualifications and conditions expressly prescribed in the recruitment notification dated 18 November 2017, including the requirements relating to postgraduate qualification, teaching or research experience, professional standing, and administrative experience.

The general procedural principle applied was that where the relief sought has ceased to have practical or surviving significance, the proceedings may be closed as infructuous.

The applicants’ challenges concerned the legality of the screening and selection arrangements and the alleged introduction of an additional publication-indexing condition.

However, before those questions were examined on merits, counsel informed the Tribunal that all applicants had retired from service, thereby eliminating the practical basis for the requested directions to call them for interview and consider their candidature.

Since the principal relief had consequently lost its utility, the Tribunal treated the OA as infructuous and found it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the PubMed requirement, the Screening Committee, or the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

MA No. 310/00228/2018 was also closed, and there was no order as to costs.