Court upholds decision offering Assistant (Grade-I) position over Executive Officer, emphasizing limited judicial review grounds.

The court dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of the Appellant's plea for appointment as Executive Officer. It upheld the Respondents' decision to offer the Appellant the position of Assistant (Grade-I) instead, based on performance evaluations and suitability assessments. The court rejected claims of bias and discrimination, clarified that there was no automatic confirmation provision in the employment terms, and deemed the fresh interaction/interview by the Respondents as necessary. It emphasized the limited grounds for judicial review of Selection Committees' suitability assessments and concluded that the Appellant was not entitled to the Executive Officer position.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Appellant's plea for appointment as Executive Officer.
2. Consideration of performance reviews and appraisal reports.
3. Allegations of bias and discrimination.
4. Applicability of "deemed confirmation" in employment terms.
5. Validity of fresh interaction/interview by Respondents.
6. Judicial review of suitability assessments by Selection Committees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Appellant's Plea for Appointment as Executive Officer:
The appeal challenges the judgment dated 10th August 2017, which dismissed the Appellant's writ petition for appointment as Executive Officer. The Appellant argued that he was entitled to the position based on his performance and the terms of his engagement letter dated 7th March 2008. However, the Respondents, after evaluating his performance, found him unsuitable for the post and instead offered him the position of Assistant (Grade-I).

2. Consideration of Performance Reviews and Appraisal Reports:
The Appellant contended that his appraisal reports from 2009 and 2010 indicated he was fit for absorption as Executive Officer. However, the court noted that the final decision was based on a comprehensive review, including a personal interaction in 2015, where the Appellant was found unsuitable for the Executive Officer position. The court emphasized that the Appellant did not have an automatic right to the post, as the engagement terms required satisfactory performance and conduct reviews.

3. Allegations of Bias and Discrimination:
The Appellant alleged bias and discrimination in the Respondents' decision-making process. The court found these allegations unsubstantiated, noting that the Appellant did not provide credible evidence to support claims of mala fide actions by the Selection Committee. The court reiterated that allegations of mala fide require positive evidence and cannot be based on mere suspicion or inference.

4. Applicability of "Deemed Confirmation" in Employment Terms:
The Appellant argued that the terms of his engagement implied deemed confirmation after the extended training period. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the engagement letter did not provide for automatic confirmation. The court distinguished the Appellant's case from precedents like Jai Prakash and Rajinder Singh Chauhan, noting that those cases involved specific service rules or terms indicating automatic confirmation, which were absent in the Appellant's case.

5. Validity of Fresh Interaction/Interview by Respondents:
The Appellant contended that the Respondents were not permitted to hold a fresh interaction/interview as directed by the court in W.P.(C) 5670/2014. The court found this contention without merit, stating that the fresh interaction was necessary to comply with the court's direction to pass a speaking order on the Appellant's representation. The Respondents' decision to conduct another interaction was deemed proper and necessary for a meaningful assessment of the Appellant's suitability.

6. Judicial Review of Suitability Assessments by Selection Committees:
The court upheld the principle that suitability assessments for a particular post are within the expertise of duly constituted Selection Committees and can only be interfered with on limited grounds, such as illegality, procedural irregularity, or mala fide actions. The court found no such grounds in the Appellant's case and emphasized that the Appellant's continued work as a Management Trainee without accepting the offer of Assistant (Grade-I) did not entitle him to the post of Executive Officer by default.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Appellant was not entitled to the position of Executive Officer based on the terms of his engagement and the assessments of his performance. The court also upheld the Respondents' decision to offer the Appellant the position of Assistant (Grade-I) and found no basis for the allegations of bias, discrimination, or deemed confirmation. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was found to be without infirmity and beyond the scope of judicial review regarding the suitability assessment.

---