JAGMOHAN PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents No.2 to 4 in calling the respondent No.5 for the interview for filling up the post of Head of the Department (Food Production) and also for not calling the petitioner for interview to the said post has filed this writ petition in this Court seekina for quashing of the call letter issued to the respondent No.5 and the interview held pursuant to the aforesaid call letter and also for quashing the letter dated 2 1/09/2000, whereby the respondent No.2 cancelled the call letter for interview issued to the petitioner'.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Demonstrator with the respondent No.4. He was later on appointed to the post of Assistant Instructor (Bakery Department) on 22nd September, September, 1978 in which post the petitioner was confirmed on 30/11/1979. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was made In-charge of the Bakery Department on 3/07/1990 and that from the said date the petitioner is holding the said charge. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No.5 is working on ad hoc basis as In-charge of Food Production Department with effect from 14/08/1992. It is further alleged that although the petitioner is senior to the said respondent No.5 in service, the respondents No.2 to 4 acted illegally in showing the petitioner as Junior to the said respondent No.5 as against which a writ petition is filed by the petitioner in this Court which is registered as Cw.P .No .939/1995 which is pending disposal in this Court.

(3.) An advertisement was published by the respondent No.2 to 4 in the Newspaper calling for applications for filling up various posts of Head of the Department, pursuant to which, the petitioner as also the respondent No.5 along with other candidates submitted their applications for the aforesaid post. The petitioner as also the respondent No.5 along with other candidates were called for the interview. However, the respondent No.2 to 4 not only cancelled the call letter issued to the petitioner but also cancelled the interview scheduled to be held on 4/10/2000. It is alleged that a new set of call letters were issued by the respondents No.2 to 4 only to seven persons for the interview scheduled to be held on 10th October, 2000 on which date an interview was conducted and names were recommended by the Selection Committee. As the petitioner was not called for the said interview and as the respondent No.5 was called for the interview and as he was selected, the present petition is filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.