BHIKSHU SATYAPALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge, dismissing WP 3914/2000. In the writ petition, the selection and appointment of the third respondent to the post of Director, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara had been questioned by the Appellant (hereafter "the petitioner").

(2.) THE brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are that an advertisement was issued on 17th May 1999, inviting eligible candidates to apply for the said post of Director of the Nava Nalanda Mahavihara. It is common ground that the petitioner applied; so did other candidates, including the third respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner, the third respondent and several candidates applied for the post. The petitioner was working as Head of Department of Buddhist Studies in Delhi University; he was 50 years of age, and had an M.Phil degree in his favour. In addition, the petitioner cites a number of distinctions and achievements by him in respect of Pali language, studies and research. Those details have been extracted in the writ petition. The petitioner also submits that he has excellent academic credentials, having secured the highest achievements, and obtained gold medals etc. The petitioner had also contended that apart from the fact that he was the best suited candidate, the third respondent did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions. In this regard, it had been averred that the said respondent - who was ultimately selected and appointed to the post - lacked the minimum qualifications and what is more did not have the experience in guiding or supervising research scholars. The petitioner had also alleged that the third respondent had not effected any significant publication much less of importance and that as between the claims of both to be appointed, his (the petitioner's) was superior. It was pleaded in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge that even though the Selection Committee conducted a formal interview, yet it overlooked vital and material facts which rendered the application of third respondent unworthy of consideration. Consequently, submitted the appellant, the appointment itself was contrary to law.