https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105354 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. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105354 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105354