Impermissible interference in selection process vitiates appointment; candidate below in merit panel may still challenge the selection.

A rejected candidate could challenge the appointment of a selected candidate without separately assailing rejection of his own name, because he still had a cause of action to question appointment of a person placed below him in the merit panel. The appointment was then found vitiated by impermissible interference in the statutory selection process: materials were manipulated, the recommendation was stalled, and favouritism distorted consideration of the reserve panel. The appointment was set aside, while the argument that the reserve candidate had to be appointed as of right was rejected. Fresh, untainted consideration of the names already selected by the committee was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejected candidate could maintain a challenge to the appointment of the selected candidate without separately assailing the rejection of his own name; (ii) whether the appointment process was vitiated by impermissible interference and favouritism, rendering the appellant's appointment liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the rejected candidate could maintain a challenge to the appointment of the selected candidate without separately assailing the rejection of his own name.

Analysis: The challenge to the appointment of the appointee was held to be maintainable. Even if the rejection of the other candidate's name had not been independently assailed, he still had a cause of action to question the appointment of a person placed below him in the merit panel. The maintainability of the challenge was therefore not defeated on the ground that the rejection order was not separately attacked.

Conclusion: The challenge was maintainable and the objection to locus standi was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment process was vitiated by impermissible interference and favouritism, rendering the appellant's appointment liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The governing rules required selection to be made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, and the selection committee's recommendation, along with the materials considered by it, had to be placed before the appointing committee without unilateral addition or alteration. Materials not placed before the selection committee were not to be used to defeat a recommendation, save in exceptional circumstances where relevant intervening material was properly placed before the appointing committee. The file notings showed that the secretary's intervention effectively stalled the selected candidate, prevented timely consideration of the reserve panel, and enabled the appellant's name to be sent later when the appellant's disciplinary difficulties had abated. The Court treated this as rank favouritism and an impermissible attempt to distort the selection process. The argument that the reserve candidate must automatically be appointed was also rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The appellant's appointment was rightly set aside and the challenge to the selection process failed.

Final Conclusion: The appointment was invalidated for interference with the statutory selection process, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open. The matter was disposed of with directions for a fresh, untainted consideration of the names already selected by the selection committee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a selection committee has made a lawful recommendation, the appointing authority cannot distort the process by introducing extraneous material or manipulating consideration so as to defeat the committee's choice; impermissible interference and favouritism vitiate the appointment.

---