CHANDNI LUTHRA Vs. ANIL BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the challenge is to the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Director (Marketing & Commercial), Indian Tourism and Development Corporation Limited.

(2.) The petitioner, who has described herself as "Senior Vice-President" functioning with the Indian Tourism and Development Corporation Limited (in short ITDC'), has averred that appointment of respondent No. 4 as Director in ITDC is illegal inasmuch as according to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, in case the suitable departmental candidates are available there could not be an appointment of outsider to this post. It is alleged that initially the post was circulated amongst the departmental candidates and also persons from other public undertakings and short-listed candidates including the petitioner were interviewed in July 1973 but without declaring the result of the said interview, another interview was held on March 24, 1994 and respondent No. 4 alongwith other candidates including the petitioner were interviewed and a panel of candidates was constituted which included the petitioner as well and ignoring the Government guidelines respondent No. 4 has been appointed as a Director instead of the petitioner who was the departmental candidate whose claim to the post was preferential.

(3.) It is also pleaded that the petitioner possessed best qualifications for being appointed to the said post whereas respondent No. 4 did not even have the minimum specified qualification of having five years experience in particular sphere as advertised. The allegations of mala fide have been also made against respondent No. I, Chairman and Managing Director of ITDC, that he had some bias against the petitioner inasmuch as before the crucial interview was to be held he had issued letter of criticism to the petitioner to which the petitioner had sent a reply taking strong objection to issuance of such a letter by him and for placing that letter in her ACR dossier. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 ought not to have participated in the interview having issued such a letter to the petitioner and he should have refused from the said meeting of the Selection Committee. These allegations have been controverted by respondent No. 1 and also by the other respondents 2,3 & 6.