Selection Committee Members Can't Lay Down Selection Criteria Unless Specifically Authorized: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court recently held that a selection committee is not authorised to lay down selection criteria unless specifically permitted to do so and clarified that such criteria are to be decided by the rule-making body. 

“The members of the selection board are for that matter, any other selection committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorized specifically in that regard. It is basically the function of the rule making authority to provide the basis for the selection.”

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi after referring to the precedents submitted by the petitioner further observed that the selection committee could only have modified the selection procedure with prior intimation and not after the process has already begun.

“...the Selecting Body/Board cannot change the method of selection or cannot allocate weightage marks under different heads in the midstream, without rules provide for that and without prior intimation to the aspiring candidates, as has been done in the present case…. There ought not have been any objection had the selection process been informed to the candidates well in advance.”

The Court was hearing a writ challenging the actions of the Director General of the National Institute of Plant Health Management (NIPHM) in selecting and appointing Dr. Edupuganti Sree Latha as its Assistant Director.

The petitioner was initially hired on a deputation basis and subsequently on a regular basis. When the position of Assistant Director (PHM) was advertised, the petitioner participated in the selection process. However, ed for the post, he was not selected to fill the post.

The petitioner contested the selection of Dr. Latha and contended that the selection procedure was illegal and arbitrary. He argued that as per the notification issued in 2016, the selection was to be made under three heads, a written test, a PowerPoint presentation and an interview. However, the selection committee changed the selection procedure midway on the day of selection after the written test, without any prior notice.

In the modified selection procedure, the allocation of weightage marks was changed. The petitioner contended that placing higher marks for the interview than the written test would vitiate the procedure.

Per contra, the Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the official respondents contended that the petitioner had approached the Court with a delay, vexatiously due to not being selected for the post. He further submitted that the selection process was conducted by a committee of experts, consistent with previous practices. They contended that the petitioner's participation in a similar selection process for the post of Scientific Officer previously weakened her case.

Dr. Latha filed a counter stating that the petitioner approached the Court with an unexplained delay of almost 3 months after the completion of the selection procedure and prayed that the Court may dismiss the writ.

The Court noticed that if the selection committee is permitted to change the selection procedure midway, there is bound to be irreparable and irreversible harm.

“The selection committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its standards in addition to what was prescribed under the rules.”

The court thus ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that the selection committee did not have the authority to change the selection criteria midway, especially without explicitly stating such authority. It found the selection process to be illegal and arbitrary and ordered the process to be restarted with comprehensive guidelines for selection.

"Therefore, allocating marks under different heads by the selection committee in addition to what was mentioned in the notification, that too, in the midst of the selection process i.e. after conducting the written examination, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has started, which is clearly impermissible." 

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, setting aside the selection and appointment of Dr. Latha.

Case Title: NEELAM LAVANYA, HYD. vs. D.G, NIPHM, Hyd & 2 Ors.

Counsel for petitioner: K Lakshmi Narasimha

Counsel for respondents: Gadi Praveen Kumar, Dy. Solicitor General, Goda Ramalakshmi

Click Here To Read/Download Order