(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the resolution cancelling the selection process passed by the second respondent in its 57th meeting held on 14.12.2019 as communicated vide impugned order made in NITT/Registrar/DR/2020-21 dated 26.05.2020 by the 3rd and 4th respondents and quash the same as illegal and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to act upon the resolution taken by the second respondent in its 55th meeting held on 06.07.2019 by approving the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the resolution of the second respondent dated 14.12.2019 and the consequential communication of the respondents 3 and 4 dated 26.05.2020. The petitioner had further prayed for a consequential direction to the third respondent to act upon the resolution of the second respondent dated 06.07.2019 by approving the appointment of the writ petitioner as Deputy Registrar of National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

2. The petitioner herein was serving in the Indian Air Force from 23.01.1988 to 09.01.2006 as Sergeant. On his discharge, he was working as Section Officer in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi between 2006-2014 as a Section Officer

3. The petitioner herein had joined the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) as Administrative Officer on 20.03.2014 and according to him, he was relieved on 30.07.2018. It is further averred that in order to join the Indian Institute of Management, Thiruchirappalli, he tendered technical resignation to the 5th respondent on 29.06.2018 and the same was accepted on 30.07.2018.

4. The petitioner had further averred that he had joined the 6th respondent organisation as Senior Administrative Officer on 01.08.2018 and while he was serving there, he had applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in the National Institute of Technology, Trichy pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.05.2019.

5. According to the petitioner, the 55th meeting of Board of Governors of National Institute of Technology was held on 06.07.2019 and in the said meeting, the petitioner's application for the post of Deputy Registrar was approved and he was selected. However, in the 56th meeting held on 28.09.2019, the Board had advised the National Institute of Technology to seek legal opinion from the learned Additional Solicitor General before taking a final decision on his appointment. Based upon the legal opinion from the Additional Solicitor General, in the 57th meeting held on 14.12.2019, the Board has resolved to cancel the recruitment of the Deputy Registrar and the Board had advised the institute to get officer for the Deputy Registrar Post through advertisement for direct recruitment or deputation. In the meantime, on 12.05.2020, the petitioner has addressed a communication to the first respondent regarding the cancellation of the selection procedure for the post of Deputy Registrar. As a reply to his complaint, a communication was addressed by the first respondent to the writ petitioner on 26.05.2020 explaining the reasons for cancellation of his selection and the reasons for passing resolution. This communication of the first respondent is also impugned in the present writ petition.

(B).Reasons assigned in the communication dated 26.05.2020 for cancellation of selection process are as follows:

6. The candidate has crossed 50 years as on the relevant date namely 07.06.2019 and therefore, the Board of Governors in their 56th meeting had resolved to get legal opinion before final decision is taken.

7. In the legal opinion, it was stated that the petitioner has not claimed any such relaxation in his application. That apart, after getting discharged from Air Force, the petitioner had already joined JNU, Delhi in the year 2006 and therefore, he cannot seek reservation under Ex-servicemen quota for the second time. The Deputy Registrar post is a Group-A post and therefore, the age concession is applicable to Commissioned Officer and not to a Sergeant.

8. As per Clause 13 of the Advertisement, the candidate who is presently employed in Government and Semi-Government Organisation, must apply through their present employer. In case of anticipated delay, they can submit the application directly. However, they would be permitted to appear for interview, only if the application is duly forwarded though proper channel by the employer. In the present case, the candidate has not forwarded his application through proper channel at the time of applying. He can be permitted to attend the interview only, if the application has been duly forwarded through proper channel by his employer.

9. Based upon the above said legal opinion, the Board of Governors in their 57th meeting held on 14.12.2019 resolved to cancel the recruitment and advised the Institute to go for a fresh advertisement. These details were communicated to the writ petitioner by the first respondent by his impugned communication dated 26.05.2020.

(C).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per advertisement, the application has to be submitted only through on-line. The on-line application format does not provide any column to seek age relaxation on the ground that the petitioner is an Ex-servicemen. In such circumstances, the application of the writ petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he had not sought for age relaxation.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training dated 25.02.2014 had contended that even if an Ex-servicemen has already secured regular employment in civil post, he would be permitted the benefit of age relaxation as admissible for Ex-servicemen for securing another employment to any higher post or service. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, initially the petitioner was appointed as Section Officer in JNU and later as an Administrative Office in the fifth respondent Institute. While applying, he was on a deputation as Senior Administrative Officer in the sixth respondent Institution. The post of Deputy Registrar is a higher post than the posts which were held by the writ petitioner earlier.

12. In such circumstances, as per Office Memorandum cited supra, the petitioner would still be eligible to claim age concession because he is aspiring to a higher post namely the post of Deputy Registrar. The learned counsel had relied upon the Ex-servicemen ((Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 and contended that an Ex-Servicemen includes a Commissioned Officer or a short service Commissioned Officer. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner having put in more than 17 years of service in the Indian Air Force cannot be considered to be a person ineligible for claiming age relaxation for an Ex-Servicemen.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of High Court of Delhi in WP(C).No.5145 of 2016 (CPL Ranjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) and contended that merely because the application was not made through a proper channel, the same cannot be rejected. It is only a minor infraction. He had further submitted that the order of Delhi High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil).No.22476 of 2016 on 02.12.2016. Hence, he submitted that merely because the application of the writ petitioner was not routed through the employer, the same cannot be rejected. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the resolution of the Board of Governors passed in their 57th meeting and to appoint the writ petitioner based upon the resolution passed by the Board of Governors in their 55th meeting and appoint the petitioner as a Deputy Registrar in the National Institute of Technology, Trichy.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner has not applied through proper channel namely through his employer. Therefore, he was erroneously called for an interview. Thereafter, the issue was referred for a legal opinion and in the legal opinion, it was brought to the notice that the petitioner should not have been called for the interview. When the selection process has not been completed and the petitioner has not been issued with any appointment order, the resolution passed by the National Institute of Technology, cannot be put to challenge.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 drew the attention of the Court to Clause 13 of the Notification wherein it is specifically mentioned that the candidate who were already employed in Government or Semi- Government Organisation must apply through the present employer. In case of anticipated and unavoidable delay in their application, they can submit advance copies of their applications directly which can be considered provisionally. Relying upon the said Clause, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the application of the writ petitioner is defective and before the date of interview, the petitioner was not able to obtain any No Objection Certificate or any letter from his employer namely his fifth respondent.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 also drew the attention of the Court with regard to the application filed by the writ petitioner to indicate that the application has not been forwarded by the competent authority. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the communication dated 04.09.2019 wherein the National Institute of Technology, Trichy has specifically informed the petitioner that they are in receipt of advance copy only. Under the said communication, the petitioner has been called upon to produce NOC and get the application forwarded through proper channel. It was further informed that these documents should reach the National Institute of Technology on or before 09.09.2019. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner was not able to submit his documents before the said cut -off date.

17. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 further relied upon a communication of the fifth respondent dated 21.06.2019 wherein, it was pointed out that the present employer had not only rejected the request of the petitioner to forward the application, but has also declared that the writ petitioner has forfeited his lien in the fifth respondent institution. According to him, without challenging the said communication, the present writ petition is not maintainable. She had further pointed out that when the employer has refused to forward the application, the National Institute of Technology, Trichy cannot be found fault with for cancelling the selection process.

18. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 had further contended that in the writ petition the petitioner has specifically stated that he is not claiming any age relaxation on the ground that he is an Ex-servicemen. Only in the reply affidavit, such an concession has being sought for. In such circumstances, the petitioner having crossed the age of 50 years on the relevant date, was not eligible for being considered. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the resolution passed by the Board of Governors in cancelling the selection process and for advising the National Institute of Technology, Trichy to go for a fresh selection.

19. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent extensively relied upon his written submissions and pointed out that the writ petitioner herein was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the fifth respondent institute on 20.03.2014 and his services were confirmed from March 2016. The petitioner made a request to the fifth respondent institute on 11.05.2018 seeking No Objection Certificate to join as an Senior Administrative Officer in Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Trichy. Though the petitioner did not seek prior permission, the fifth respondent had graciously acceded to his request and issued No Objection Certificate on 22.05.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his technical resignation on 25.06.2018 requesting for his notice period to be condoned. However, later he has withdrawn the condonation and requested that he may be relieved on 30.07.2018. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner's technical resignation was accepted on 30.07.2018.

20. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent had further contended that the petitioner had jointed IIM, Trichy on 01.08.2018 as Senior Administrative Officer. While he was working there, the National Institute of Technology, Trichy issued an advertisement on 08.05.2019 calling for application to the post of Deputy Registrar on 17.05.2019 . The petitioner has made his representation to the fifth respondent to forward his application to N.I.T. Trichy since he was in probation in I.I.M.Trichy. On 21.06.2019, the fifth respondent Institute has informed the petitioner that his request dated 17.05.2019 has been rejected and his lien in the said Institute stands forfeited.

21. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that the petitioner had made a complaint to the first respondent as against the fifth respondent Institute on 13.11.2019. On 12.05.2020, the first respondent replied to the fifth respondent communication indicating that the matter may be decided in the light of Ministry's letter dated 07.02.2020. Accordingly, the fifth respondent retained the petitioner's lien. The petitioner was relieved on 30.07.2018 and accordingly, the retention of lien is for a period of two years. Therefore, the petitioner has been relieved on 30.07.2018 and hence, his lien came to an end on 30.07.2020.

22. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent had further submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit as against the fifth respondent in Civil Suit No.511 of 2020 before the Additional District Court, Saket Court, New Delhi. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated as against the writ petitioner. The petitioner was issued with dismissal order on 17.10.2023. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands by not disclosing all the documents. He had further submitted that when the lien was about to expire on 30.07.2020, the petitioner sent a communication to the fifth respondent seeking extension of lien as his confirmation was pending in the Indian Institute of Management, Trichy. In the said letter, he had completely suppressed that he has been terminated from IIM Trichy even on 09.04.2020. He had further submitted that the chronology of dates and events clearly indicate that the petitioner is trying to abuse the process of Court not only as against the fifth respondent, but also against other respondents. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary cost.

23. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the prayer that is sought for in the writ petition is as against the respondents 2 to 4 herein, the first respondent has just communicated the explanation received from NIT Trichy to the writ petitioner on 26.05.2020. Therefore, the first respondent has no role to play. Hence, the first respondent is only a formal party to the present writ petition.

24. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(D).Discussion:

25. The National Institute of Technology, Trichy has issued an advertisement on 08.05.2019 calling for applications to the post of Deputy Registrar. On the said date, the petitioner was employed in the fifth respondent Institution, but he was working in the sixth respondent Institution on deputation. As per Clause-13 of the Notification, a candidate working in any Government or Semi-Government Organisation or autonomous body of the Government of India has to apply through their present employer. In case, of anticipated and unavoidable delay, they can submit the advance copy. However, the candidates are allowed to attend interview, only if the applications are duly forwarded through proper channel by the employer.

26. The petitioner had submitted his application through online on 17.05.2019. Admittedly, the application of the writ petitioner has not been forwarded through his employer namely the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIPEA). The scrutinizing committee had found that the petitioner has crossed the age of 50 years and found him not eligible. However, he was called to attend the interview on 03.07.2019. The candidature of the petitioner was approved by the second respondent in their 55th Board meeting on 06.07.2019.

27. The Board of Governors entertained doubt with regard to the right of the petitioner to claim age relaxation and therefore, they sought for legal opinion from the learned Additional Solicitor General, in their 57th meeting held on 14.12.2019. In the legal opinion, it was observed that the petitioner is not eligible to seek age relaxation and his application having not been forwarded by the present employer, he cannot be considered for the above said post.

28. In view of the above said legal opinion, resolution was passed in the 57th Board meeting on 14.12.2019 to cancel the recruitment of Deputy Registrar post. The petitioner has escalated his grievance to the first respondent in his letter dated 12.05.2020 which has been replied by the first respondent on 26.05.2020 incorporating the legal opinion.

29. As per Clause 13 of the Notification issued by NIT Trichy on 08.05.2019, the candidates who are already in Government service or in autonomous body have to forward their applications through their employer. Admittedly, when the petitioner had submitted his online application on 17.05.2019, it was only an advance copy which was not forwarded by his employer namely NIPEA. On 17.05.2019, the petitioner has made a request to NIPEA to forward his application to NIT Trichy. This request was rejected by way of communication dated 21.06.2019 issued by NIPEA wherein it is stated that the petitioner's request for forwarding his application is not acceded to and his lien in NIPEA stands forfeited. This communication of NIPEA has not been put to challenge before any forum.

30. In such circumstances, it is clear that the application made by the writ petitioner to NIT Trichy is clearly defective. The petitioner ought not to have been called for to attend the interview unless he had produced a forwarding letter from his employer namely NIPEA. However, on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner is likely to produce his NOC from his employer, he was called. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot be found fault with for seeking legal opinion in their 56th meeting. Later, based upon the legal opinion, the second respondent has cancelled the selection process on 14.12.2019.

31. When the application itself is defective, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation or not pales into insignificance. The first respondent has only communicated the explanation offered by the second respondent in their impugned proceedings dated 26.05.2020. Therefore, the same cannot be put to challenge.

(E).Conclusion:

In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.