S P CHAUDHARY Vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION OGRANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. Since we have heard the arguments at length we propose to dispose of the writ petition at this stage objection of Mr. Jain for second respondent notwithstanding.

(2.) The petitioner, working as Joint Chief in the office of the first respondent, has challenged the appointment of the second respondent Mr. AM. Vadi as Resident Director at New York. The post of Resident Director (Foreign Office) is a selection Group A' post in the scale of pay of Rs.4,100.00-5,300.00 (Level-1) and Rs.3,700.00-5,000.00 (Level-11). The method of recruitment is by transfer failing which by direct recruitment/ deputation. Grades from which appointment "on transfer could be made are: Officers of the first respondent in the pay-scale of Rs.4,100.00-5,300.00 with two years service in the grade for Level-1 posting and in the pay- scale of Rs.3,700.00-5,000.00 with four years service in the grade for Level-II posting. The selection committee is described as Senior Selection Committee Grade I. As per the recruitment rules the tenure of posting will normally be three years which may be curtailed or extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. As per the recruitment rules the Selection Committee for the post of Resident Director for offices abroad means a committee consisting of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, to be nominated by the Minister of Commerce; the Executive Director and upto two experts to be nominated by the Chairman of the first respondent. In the present case, the Selection Committee was constituted of the following persons :-

(3.) The Selection Committee considered the names of three persons including the petitioner as well as the second respondent and one Mr. P.K. Bhandari. These officers were interviewed for Level-I post in New York. This was on 9 March 1993. On this very day the same very Selection Committee also considered three officers for Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-11 post). One Mr. Daya Chand was also interviewed for the post of Resident Director, Tokyo. Hebhad only 1-1/2 years of total service left in the first respondent. The selection of the second respondent has been challenged particularly on two counts : First, that he was not qualified as he was not having two years service in the grade of Rs.4,100.00-5,300.00 for Level-1 posting. It is contended that the second respondent was working as Joint Chief on ad-hoc basis only since 15 May 1989 and was not having regular two years service in the grade, while the petitioner was serving as Joint Chief on regular basis for the last over 15 years. The second objection was that the name of the second petitioner had been forwarded to the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Resident Director, Tokyo (Level-11) posting and Selection Committee could not assume a jurisdiction to select the second respondent for Level-1 post of Resident Director at New York.