SHREEKANT GUPTA Vs. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. Respondents have issued an advertisement for Overseas Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Environmental Economics. Requirement for consideration was that Indian citizens holding permanent position in Indian University, Colleges or Research Institutes with a Ph.D in economics and below 40 years of age as on the last date prescribed for receipt of completed applications, are eligible for these research fellowships. It was further stipulated that the preference will be given to candidates who are teaching in an University or a college and have taken courses in environmental economics at the post-graduate level/have done teaching or research in that area. Respondent has contended that 15 applications were received by the respondent and after shortlisting 8 candidates were selected for interview.

(2.) Aggrieved by non-consideration of the application, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Banerjee, has contended that the petitioner was member of parallel committee and he has contended that petitioner was more qualified and had experience and exposure in international environmental economics, therefore, it was thought proper by the respondent that candidates, who did not have that kind of exposure in environmental economics, should be granted fellowship. The Court directed the respondent to produce the file wherein the application of the petitioner was considered. From the perusal of the file produced by Mr.Banerjee, it is seen that a note has been put on the application of the petitioner with the following noting |-

(3.) This note has neither been signed by anyone in the organisation of the respondent NO.2, however, it has been stated by the counsel for respondent No.2 that this note was prepared by the Member Secretary of the respondent-organisation. Even if it is assumed the note was prepared by the Member Secretary, irrelevant consideration has gone into the process of rejecting the application of the petitioner as these were not the conditions stipulated in the advertisement when the respondent issued a public advertisement for grant of fellowship or any other public post, it was imperative for the respondent to have clearly indicated the stipulation they desire for the candidates for such fellowship.