M V NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

(2.) The controversy in this appeal pertains to the appointment to the post of Director in National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property (N.R.L.C.) on transfer on deputation basis. The said post was in the scale of Rs. 4500-5700 with effect from 1-1-1986.

(3.) On 26th June, 1989 the Deputy Education Advisor to the Government of India in Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Culture) addressed a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories and all Universities and Heads of recognised research institutions intimating them that the services of a suitable officer are urgently required on transfer on deputation basis on the post of Director (N.R.L.C.). It was requested that the said vacancy be circulated in all the departments and offices under the State Governments/Union Territories and the bio-data of suitable candidates fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions as mentioned in Annexure (I) to the said letter be sent to the Ministry. Accordingly six names were received including the appellant, Dr. M. vs. Nair and the third respondent in the appeal, Dr. I. K. Bhatnagar. Only two persons were found to be eligible by the Union Public Service Commission viz., the appellant, Dr. Nair and another person, Dr. Tandon. Inasmuch as the service records of Dr. Tandon were not sent, he was not called for interview with the result that only Dr. Nair remained in the field. He was interviewed and selected. His selection was questioned by Dr. Bhatnagar (third respondent in this appeal) by way of an Original Application (O. A. No. 1363 of 1990) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The relief sought for in the O.A. - in the words of the Tribunal - was for issuance of a "direction to the respondents to declare him entitled to be granted relaxation like Dr. Nair, in the requirement of five years service as Project Officer so as to make him eligible to be called for interview to the post of Director, N.R.L.C., to interview him and if selected, appoint him to the said post with all consequential benefits". It is evident from the very prayer in the O.A. that the third respondent, on his own showing, was not eligible for the said post and, therefore, he sought for a relaxation to make him eligible therefor. He, however, assumed that a relaxation was granted in favour of Dr. Nair to make him eligible for consideration for the said post. On that basis he prayed that he may be similarly granted a relaxation.