Selection is invalid when the Search-cum-Selection Committee violates mandatory requirements for external and domain-expert members.

The applicant, a senior medical officer at the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (NITRD), applied for the post of Director pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.12.2023 and was shortlisted and interviewed on 12.06.2024.

The Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) comprised the Secretary, Health; Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR); Director General of Health Services; and Director, AIIMS.

The applicant challenged the Committee’s constitution, contending that it did not include at least half its members from outside the Ministry/Department administering the post and lacked an expert with acknowledged expertise in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, as required by the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022.

The DoPT had approved the proposed composition on 07.05.2024 subject to compliance with the 31.08.2022 guidelines.

Dr. Upasna Agarwal was appointed Director, NITRD on 27.03.2025 pursuant to the SCSC’s recommendations.

The respondents defended the Committee’s composition by asserting that DHR was a separate Department and AIIMS an autonomous institution, and further contended that the applicant was barred by acquiescence because he participated in the selection without objection.

1. Whether the SCSC complied with paragraph 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022 requiring at least half of its members to be from outside the Ministry/Department administering the post, including organisations under its administrative control.

2. Whether the SCSC complied with paragraph 3.1(vii) of the DoPT OM by including at least one expert member having acknowledged expertise relevant to the specialised field of NITRD.

3. Whether the applicant’s participation in the selection process without an immediate objection barred him from challenging the constitution of the SCSC after his non-selection.

4. Whether the selection and consequential appointment of respondent No. 4 could be sustained despite the alleged defects in the constitution of the SCSC.

The Tribunal applied paragraphs 3.1(vii) and 3.1(viii) of the DoPT OM dated 31.08.2022, which require a balanced Search-cum-Selection Committee, including expert members with acknowledged expertise relevant to the post and at least half of the members from outside the Ministry/Department administering the post, including organisations under its administrative control.

It held that the substance of the administrative relationship, rather than merely the separate nomenclature or autonomous status of an entity, determines whether a member is “outside” the concerned Ministry or Department.

The Tribunal relied on Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 for the general rule against challenging a selection process after participating without demur, but applied the qualification recognised in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2019, that acquiescence is not an absolute bar where the challenge concerns a fundamental illegality affecting the fairness or legality of the process.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of non-arbitrariness and fairness in State action under Article 14, relying on 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.

Judicial review does not permit reassessment of comparative merit or substitution of the Tribunal’s view for that of an expert body absent perversity, mala fides or procedural illegality, as recognised in N.G. Desai v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 7322/2002.

The Tribunal found that DHR, although separately identified under the Allocation of Business Rules, was created under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and had its posting and transfer matters administered by that Ministry; consequently, its Secretary could not be treated as an outside member.

Similarly, AIIMS’s autonomous and statutory status did not make it external because it remained an organisation under the administrative control of the Ministry.

Thus, the respondents failed to establish that at least two of the four SCSC members were genuinely external.

The Tribunal further held that, while the Recruitment Rules did not confine eligibility for Director to specialists exclusively in Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases and respondent No. 4 was not held ineligible merely because she possessed an MD in Internal Medicine, the Committee was nevertheless required to include acknowledged expertise relevant to NITRD’s specialised field.

The respondents did not satisfactorily demonstrate that such relevant specialised expertise had been included, and the presence of an eminent medical administrator alone did not fulfil the specific guideline requirement.

The applicant’s participation did not cure these foundational defects because his challenge was directed to the legality of the Committee itself, was raised before the final appointment, and was not merely an appeal against comparative assessment.

The conditional DoPT approval dated 07.05.2024 could not validate a Committee that failed to satisfy those requirements.

Accordingly, the recommendations of the SCSC and the consequential appointment of Dr. Upasna Agarwal as Director, NITRD were set aside.

The respondents were directed to conduct the selection afresh under the applicable Recruitment Rules, the advertisement and the DoPT OM, with a properly constituted Committee containing the requisite outside members and experts with acknowledged expertise relevant to NITRD.

The applicant, respondent No. 4 and all otherwise eligible candidates were permitted to participate in the fresh selection.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.