Recalling Orders to Re-evaluate Relative Merit and Necessary Parties in Selection Dispute Hearing

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) advertised six posts for Assistant Dietician on 21.10.2020.

Following the selection process, unsuccessful candidates (Original Applicants) filed OA No. 361/2022 and OA No. 889/2022 challenging the recruitment.

The Tribunal allowed these OAs on 13.07.2023 and 17.07.2023.

AIIMS filed Review Applications (RAs) arguing that all advertised posts were already filled and that the Tribunal overlooked findings of a "Second Committee" which concluded the selection was fair and the original applicant lacked relevant experience.

Third-party selected candidates (Neetika Oberoi and Indu Grover) filed RAs claiming they were necessary parties who were never heard, despite being directly affected by the orders.

1. Whether the failure to implead and hear already appointed candidates, who are "necessary parties" likely to be adversely affected by the judgment, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.

2. Whether the non-consideration of the "Second Committee" report and the lack of vacant posts constitute sufficient grounds to recall the earlier orders.

The court applied the principles of Review Jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC), focusing on the rectification of "errors apparent on the face of the record".

It relied on the doctrine of "Audi Alteram Partem" (natural justice), specifically that necessary parties whose appointments are at stake must be heard before any adverse order is passed.

It emphasized the requirement for a "holistic" judicial approach in recruitment matters to avoid legal complexity and confusion.

The Tribunal observed that its previous orders dated 13.07.2023 and 17.07.2023 were silent regarding the fate of currently serving employees who had been appointed pursuant to the 2020 advertisement.

It reasoned that because these employees (like Neetika Oberoi and Indu Grover) were necessary parties whose livelihoods and seniority would be impacted, they had a legal right to be heard.

The Tribunal further noted that the previous proceedings failed to analyze the detailed factual findings of the "Second Committee" constituted by AIIMS to investigate the recruitment grievances.

It concluded that deciding the OAs independently without considering the full factual matrix and the relative merit of selected vs. non-selected candidates created significant legal complexity and was an error as all posts were already filled.

The court held that the OAs required a "fresh look" to ensure natural justice and a proper analysis of the selection process. Both OA Nos. 361/2022 and 889/2022 were restored to their original positions and ordered to be tagged together for a joint fresh hearing.