FAROOQ SAULAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Director (Engg.) in the respondent No.3 Corporation. The petitioners seek for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto for quashing the said appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Director (Engg.). The petitioners also seek for a direction to respondent No.1 to recommend to the President of India to appoint petitioner No.1 to the post of Director (Engg.) in respondent No.3 Corporation with retrospective effects and also to direct the respondent No.3 to initiate necessary action against respondent No.5 and other erring officials.

(2.) The petition is filed by the two petitioners, who at the time of filing of the writ petition were working on the posts of Executive Director and Deputy General Manager with the respondent No.3 Corporation. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that the respondents colluded with each other and conducted the selection process for the post of Director (Engg.) in the respondent No.3 Corporation in such a manner as to eliminate all other applicants and to promote the candidature of respondent No.5 for the said post.

(3.) when a vacancy arose in the post of Director (Engg.), which is a Board level post in the respondent No.3 Corporation, the Public Enterprises Selection Board circulated the said vacancy for filling up the said post along with Job description and eligibility criteria. According to the said circular, it was open for all officers, who fulfil the minimum eligibility in all various Public Sector Undertakings to apply for the said post. As against the aforesaid circular, five applications were received out of which three were internal candidates, who were already working with the respondent No.3 and the remaining two, including respondent No.5, were from other Public Sector Undertakings. All the .five applicants fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria as envisaged in the aforesaid circular and were called for the interview for the said post. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 also fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and, therefore, both of them were called for the interview for the said post whereas petitioner No.2 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and accordingly he was not called for the interview. In the interview two, out of the three internal candidates, appeared and, therefore, four out of the five applicants appeared in the interview. The Public Enterprises Selection Board, on the basis of performance in interview and other relevant factors including the confidential reports of each applicant, recommended the name of respondent No.5 and one Sh.B.K-Mandal to the post of Director (Engg.) keeping in view the selection policy in regard to internal candidates, as contained in the Government of India resolution dated 3.3.87. On the basis of the recommendations of the Public Enterprises Selection Board, the appointment of respondent No.5 as Director (Engg.) in the respondent No.3 Corporation was made by respondent No.1 after obtaining the approval of Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) as required. The said appointment is challenged in the present writ petition seeking for a writ of quo-warranto.