A K CHAWLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consequent upon the interview of the petitioner A.K. Chawla by the Public Enterprises Selection Board for the post of Director of Finance in Schedule-C in the Rural Electrification Corporation, he received an offer of appointment on March 26, 1991 and assumed charge as Director (Finance) of the said Corporation on April 16, 1991. The appointment was for a period of five years. The term of appointment admittedly expired on April 15, 1996. It is also not in dispute that his tenure has not been extended. His grievance is that non-extension of his tenure is arbitrary and in contravention of the norms laid down by the Government of India requiring the Department concerned to carry out four months in advance of the end of an officer's term an appraisal of the past performance in consultation with the Public Enterprises Selection Board. The petitioner alleges that it was only after the filling of the present writ petition by him that the process of appraisal commenced. He thus claims that he should be allowed to continue in his present assignment till the date of his superannuation in March, 2000.

(2.) Needless to say, the respondents have found the writ petition unpalatable. It is claimed that though the process of appraisal had not been finalised before the filing of the writ petition, it now stands completed and the petitioner has been found to be unfit for further extension. It is also the case of the respondents that the process for appraisal had commenced on 3rd November, 1995 and that mere delay in the completion of the process would not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought. The charge that the entire exercise was arbitrary has also not been accepted by the respondents.

(3.) During arguments my attention was drawn by Ms.A.Subhashini, the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Resolution dated 3rd March, 1987 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (Deptt. of Personnel & Training) which recognises the need to develop a cadre of professional managers within the public sector and which lays down that unless markedly better candidates are available from outside, internal candidates, employed in the public sector enterprises should be preferred for appointment to Board level posts. My attention was also drawn to a copy of the demi-official letter dated 10/12th December, 1986 issued by the Cabinet Secretary and sent to all the Secretaries. The relevant portions of the said letter need to be reproduced. They are as under :-