A.S. RAVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J . 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Mr. A.S. Ravi seeking two reliefs. First relief prayed for is to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Director of the respondent No.3-Indian Institute of Packaging (hereinafter referred to as ,,respondent-Institute). Second relief claimed is for payment to the petitioner of bonus/share in consultancy income, over time allowance and risk allowance.

(2.) SO far as the relief claimed for appointment to the post of Assistant Director is concerned, the same is on the basis that respondent- Institute should not announce the result of examination of Assistant Director advertised in March, 1997 and the examination for the post of Assistant Director be quashed. It would therefore appear as if the petitioner is challenging the selection process of March, 1997, however a reading of the writ petition shows that actually petitioner who was already an employee of the respondent-Institute as a Technical Assistant is challenging the process of appointment of Assistant Directors of March, 1997 on the basis that he ought to have been appointed as an Assistant Director by the respondent- institute originally in April, 1995 itself when he was appointed as only a Technical Assistant. It may be noted that the petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Director in terms of the advertisement of March, 1997, while working as a Technical Assistant of the respondent-Institute, but petitioner was not found fit for being considered for the post inasmuch as the post of Assistant Director required experience of eight years in packaging whereas petitioner only had five years experience in packaging.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid assertions made in the counter- affidavit are relevant both for the 1994 interview and also for the 1997 interview for the post of Assistant Director. Obviously, the petitioner was not qualified for the 1997 interview as he did not have the eight years experience. For the post of Assistant Director in the year 1995, petitioner did not have five years experience. Petitioner therefore was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Director both in the year 1995 and 1997.