Judicial Review of Expert Selection: Courts should not substitute expertise without bias or arbitrariness.

The Applicant, Dr. Jai Singh Meena, was initially appointed as a Processing Technologist in 1994, promoted to Deputy Director in 2011, and granted financial upgradation in 2014.

Following the retirement of the then Director, NIFPHATT, on October 31, 2016, the Applicant was entrusted with the charge of the post of Director from November 1, 2016.

In 2017, the respondents selected and appointed Shri. Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey as Director on deputation, which the Applicant alleged was despite Chouksey lacking the prescribed qualifications.

The Applicant challenged this appointment in O.A. No. 757/2017, which was allowed by the Tribunal on August 30, 2018, quashing Chouksey's appointment and directing recommencement of the selection process.

Chouksey was repatriated in 2018, and the Applicant assumed charge as Director.

The UPSC challenged this order before the Kerala High Court, which dismissed the petition on March 8, 2019

and subsequently before the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the SLP on August 9, 2019.

Subsequently, on September 21, 2019, the Applicant requested consideration for promotion as Director, but the respondents issued a fresh notification in Employment News (Annexure A-6) on December 14-20, 2019, inviting applications for the post of Director on deputation/short-term contract plus promotion basis, with February 13, 2020, as the last date for applications.

The Applicant contended that the 4th respondent, Dr. Shine Kumar C.S., did not submit his application within the stipulated period.

On October 7, 2021, the 1st respondent shortlisted the Applicant and the 4th respondent for personal talks before the UPSC.

The Applicant appeared on November 10, 2021, contending he alone satisfied the qualifications.

On November 17, 2021, the Applicant filed the present O.A., fearing the 4th respondent would be favorably considered despite alleged ineligibility.

During the pendency of the O.A., on December 2, 2021, the 4th respondent was appointed as Director, NIFPHATT.

The 4th respondent's tenure was completed in 2024 and he was granted an extension.

The UPSC argued that the 4th respondent’s application was submitted before February 13, 2020, and that any subsequent clarifications sought were within its rights, especially given COVID-related delays.

1. Whether the 4th respondent was eligible for appointment to the post of Director, NIFPHATT, considering the allegations of late application submission and lack of prescribed experience.

2. Whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as Director, NIFPHATT, is arbitrary or discriminatory, particularly during the pendency of the original application.

3. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the selection process conducted by an expert body like the UPSC in the absence of allegations of bias or arbitrariness.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that the process of recruitment by an expert body should not be interfered with without sufficient cause, particularly when there is no allegation of bias or arbitrariness.

This principle is supported by judgments such as *Union of India & Anr. vs. A.K. Narula* (2007) 11 SCC 10 and *Secretary (Health) Department of Health & FW & Anr. vs. Dr. Anita Puri & Ors.* (1996) 6 SCC 282.

Furthermore, judicial fora should not substitute their expertise for that of an expert body constituted to evaluate the fitness of candidates.

This is reinforced by *Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya & Ors.* (2018) 15 SCC 796 and *Union Public Service Commission vs. L.P. Tiwari & Ors.* (2006) 12 SCC 317.

The UPSC's internal norms allow considering the date of submission of a candidate's application as the relevant date to avoid administrative and postal delays impacting individual rights.

The Tribunal analyzed the Applicant's contentions regarding the 4th respondent's ineligibility, specifically concerning the timely submission of his application and his experience in fish processing or Fish Processing Technology.

The UPSC stated that the 4th respondent had submitted his application before February 13, 2020, and that, according to its norms, the date of individual submission is relevant to account for administrative and postal delays, especially compounded by COVID-19 pandemic.

The UPSC also clarified that it is within its rights to seek additional clarifications regarding the completeness of applications.

Regarding the 4th respondent's qualifications and experience, the UPSC presented Annexure R-1(a) to demonstrate his qualification due to a doctorate thesis in fish processing and managerial experience as Deputy Director, MPEDA, which involved expertise in fish processing and certification.

The Tribunal determined that the core issue was whether to interfere with the selection process conducted by the UPSC, an expert body.

Citing various judicial pronouncements, it reiterated that courts should not substitute their expertise for that of an expert body in evaluating candidate fitness, nor should they interfere with a selection process unless there are allegations of bias or arbitrariness.

Since there was no allegation of bias or favouritism against the UPSC, and the selection process considered relevant parameters and determined the 4th respondent's suitability based on qualifications and experience, judicial intervention was deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal thus found that the UPSC acted within its rights and expertise in processing the applications and making the final selection.

The Tribunal concluded that the UPSC had the right to ascertain the relative merit of applicants and determine the timeliness of applications, and that seeking clarifications did not impact the timeline of applications.

The Tribunal affirmed that the UPSC correctly evaluated the 4th respondent as qualified for the post.

No costs were awarded.