SHIVANANAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 22nd February, 2007 bearing No. Aa. Ku. Ka. 67. PTD. 07 vide annexure A and the insertion Notification of even number and even date vide Annexure B as the same are illegal, void and inoperative. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of petitioner and to appoint him as director of the fourth respondent-Institute as per Government Notification dated 29th November, 2006 bearing No. IGICH/drc/2/ 2006-07, in the interest of justice and equity.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, pursuant to the Notification issued by the Director of Medical Education, Member Secretary, Selection committee, Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health dated 29th November, 2006, bearing no. IGICH/drc/2/2006-07 vide Annexure G, petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as 'director' of fourth respondent-Institute and had not suffered any disqualification, filed his application for appointment to the post of 'director' to the fourth respondent-Institute. The applications received in response to the said Notification were proceeded under the Chairmanship of the second respondent herein. Thereafter, six candidates were called for interview and were finally short listed to three candidates placing the petitioner at the top of the list in the order of merit, by awarding him 67 marks out of 100. The third respondent herein, who was also the applicant, was awarded 50% and placed second and below the petitioner by the selection Committee. The said fact is evident from the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 24th January, 2007 vide Annexure H. There after wards, the recommendations of the Selection Committee was placed before the Governing Council to reconsider the same in its meeting held on 19th February, 2007. As could be seen from the proceedings of the Governing Council meeting held on 19th February, 2007, the Governing Council abdicated its responsibility and passed the resolution authorising the second respondent to take a decision with regard to the appointment of 'director' to fourth respondent-Institute. The second respondent has now selected and appointed the third respondent pufely as an act of favouritism totally ignoring the fact that, petitioner was made meritorious than the third respondent and especially when, the selection Committee of which, he himself was the Chairman and placed the petitioner at the top of the merit list. The Governing Council by passing the resolution, authorising the second respondent to appoint suitable person to the post of Director was wholly unauthorised and impermissible, violating the doctrine of delegates non potest delegare and the consequential appointment made by second respondent is wholly without authority of law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE case of second respondent is that, petitioner, by proceeding on a fundamentally erroneous assumption that, his claim/case for selection has been ignored, has presented the instant writ petition and quite unfortunately presuming further that the Governing Council of the fourth respondent-Institute "abdicated its responsibility in selecting a suitable candidate for appointment as the Director of the said Institute. " Therefore, presuming without any basis therefor, petitioner has quite loosely employed vituperative expression that, the selection and appointment of the third respondent is purely an act of favouritism and based on extraneous considerations and that, the Governing Council has surrendered to the dictation of the answering respondent. It has also been alleged that, petitioner has been picked and chosen to be screened out and subjected to hostile discrimination solely with the object of favouring third respondent by second respondent, and by so alleging, petitioner has sought to attribute arbitrariness, capricious and whim in the selection and appointment of third respondent. The selection in question has been made on a rational basis and upon an objective consideration of the relative merits of the respective candidates, as also the provisions of the Rules of recruitment governing such a selection and keeping in view the paramount consideration of the Institute and the public at large. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is meritless and, therefore, richly commend summary rejection.