S K DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of quo warranto by Shri S. K. Dubey, petitioner, against Shri Ram Kumar, respondent No. 2. There is a National Sugar Institute at Kanpur which is a department of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. The petitioner is working there as a senior technical officer and assistant professor. He was appointed in 1963 as a Lecturer, to June 1964 he was appointed as a senior technical officer in the grade of Rs. 350 900. In 1966 he was given a higher scale of Rs. 700 1250.

(2.) So far so good. The trouble started in December 1966 when an advertisement was issued for the post of a Chief Engineer (Extension) [for short C.E. (Ext.)]. The Institute requested the Union Public Service Commission, respondent No. 3, (the Commission) to find a suitable candidate for the post of C.E. (Ext.) which carries a salary of Rs. 1100 1400. Now for this post of C.E. (Ext.) the President has framed rules regulating the method of recruitment in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules were notified in the Gazette of India on 13th July, 1964. In the rules educational and other qualifications for this post are laid down. Firstly, the candidate should have a degree in mechanical or technical engineering of a recognised university. Secondly, he must have practical experience of about 7 years. The second qualification was relaxable at Commission's discretion in case of candidates otherwise well qualified. The method of appointment to this post is also prescribed. It is "direct recruitment".

(3.) In response to the advertisement there were as many as 10 applications. Respondent No. 2 was one of them. The petitioner was not a candidate .because he had not gained practical experience of 7 years. He had been appointed only in 1963 and his experience in 1966 was not more than 3 years or so in duration. But respondent No. 2 took his degree of B.E. in 1961 and had acquired 5 years practical experience by 1967 in sugar mills and Textile Machinery Corporation. Out of the 10 applications, four were called for interview. The Commission sat to interview them. They found none suitable for the post of C.E. (Ext.). So they recommended that respondent 2 be appointed to a post next junior to the post of C.E. (Ext.) as no suitable candidate was, available for appointment as C.E. (Ext.). Accordingly, a post of Senior Technical Officer (Engg.) [for short S.T.C. (Engg.)] was created for the appointment of respondent No. 2 in lieu of the existing post of C.E. (Ext.). It was recommended that respondent No. 2 be given adequate training so that he becomes suitable for being considered for the post of C.E. (Ext.).