DHANAI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for a direction to quash the panel of names recommend on 20.2.1998 by the alleged improperly constituted Interview Board of respondent No. 2 by an illegal and irregular procedure for securing panel of unsuitable candidates and also directing respondent No. 3 not to make any appointment on the basis of the mala fide recommendation of respondent No. 2 for the appointment of Director (Finance) in State Trading Corporation of India (hereinafter reffered to as STC) till a re-selection underproperly constitued interview Board is made, for securing names for the said appointment.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Finance Manager promoted to the post of Chief General Manager (Finance); that on petitioner was assigned the duties of Director (Finance) under respondent No, 4 by order No. STC/CMD/06/95 dated 10.1.1996. that respondent No. 2 circulated vacancy of Director (Finance) under STC and invited applications; that the previous Director (Finance) Mr. G. Chaturvedi retired from his contract service on 11.1.1998; that respondent No. 2 on 27.1.1998 invited the petitioner for the "interview' to be held on 20.2.1998; that on 20.2.1998, respondent No. 2 constituted an improper Selection Board, conducted Interview' for securing names on panel for the recommendations of appointment to A.C.C. for the post of Director (Finance) in STC; that respondent No. 2 improperly constituted the Selection Board of two members only as against four required, one of whom Sh. R.K. Sinha acted as Chairman and the other Sh. S.C. Wadhawan as a Member and adopted an illegal and irregular procedure, overthrowing past practices and as reliably understood, superseded the petitioner and secured the names on Panel of unsuitable candidates Sh. P.K. Gupta and Sh. R.S. P. Sinha from outside organisations under patronage and favouritism; that the assessment made by the Board has been made without any norms or standard violating the principles of proper, just and valid selection; that as per clause 3 of the said Resolution, Public Enterprises Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PESB' ) shall consist of one part-time or full time Chairperson and three full time members; that the petitioner being the seniormost Chief General Manager (Finance) and professionally well-qualified and meritorious deserved to be selected and appointed to the post in question. It is the say of the petitioner that the Interview Board would also consist of a Chairperson and three members duly appointed by the Government, otherwise it would be an improperly constituted Board having no legal sanction, authority or jurisdiction to carry out such selection; that the remaining two members mala fide and with ulterior motive fixed the date of interview on 20.2.1998; that when the date of interview was fixed in December 1997, the complete corum was available and at the most the interview could have been fixed in January 1998 when the Chairperson and the retiring person would also be available for the said interview but this was mata tide avoided; that the petitioner is from a Scheduled Caste Community and a candidate before the Interview Board, so it was encumbent upon the respondents to have nominated at least one of the members of the Board from Scheduled Caste as to avoid any discrimination to the Scheduled Caste candidate and caste bias against them; that keeping in view the merits of the petitioner, he alone was the most suitable candidate for selecting the names for the recommendations for the appointment of Director (Finance), in STC but the petitioner was intentionally superseded and an outsider selected.

(3.) The respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5, by their counter affidavit, contended that the recruitment action for selection to the post of Director (Finance) STC was initiated by respondent No. 2 in strict compliance and conformity with the rules; regulations, guide-lines and selection policy formulated by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel Training), (respondent No. 5) vide its resolution No. 27(21 )-EO/06/CC dated 3rd March, 1987 (page 30 of the paper book). Accordingly, the relevant post was circulated and pursuant thereto, the applications were received from various sources, candidates short-listed for the interview were then interviewed by the duly constituted PESB-respondent No. 2 on 20.2.1998: that the said Board, objectively assessed each of the interviewees including the petitioner and recommended two persons in order of their merit for appointment to the post of Director (Finance) STC; that since the persons empanelled were found to be markedly superior to the petitioner on all parameters of selection, no right of the petitioner, much less any fundamental right can be said to have been violated in order to justify the present writ petition: that a and objective fair selection procedure had been adopted by the respondents to select the candidates for the post of Director (Finance) STC on the basis of qualities such as managerial ability, leadership, broad vision, track record, contribution made in his/her respective field and performance in the interview. In the given circumstances, merely the fact that the petitioner was not included in the panel of successful candidates by itself would neither justify quashing of the panel of names recommended on 20.2.1998 by respondent No. 2 nor justify any direction for re-selection; that the respondents have all along strictly followed and complied with the recruitment policy of the Government of India and have not made any deviation therefrom, hence for this reason also the present petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended that the PSEB-respondent No. 2 is a professional body charged with the responsibility of making selection to the Board level positions in Public Sector Undertakings. It is merely an Advisory Body and its recommendations have no binding force. The selection policy contained in the Government of India Resolution dated 3.3.1987 does not prescribe reservation of post for any particular community, as claimed by the petitioner. The said resolution does not provide for a corum fora meeting of the Board. The guidelines dated 23.5.1997 issued by the Establishment Officer, with the approval of the 'Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (respondent No. 3) provide that in the absence of the Secretary of the concerned Administrative Ministry, the Additional Secretary should assist the Board during its scheduled meeting. However, an exception has been made in respect of Schedule 'A' post, where the Secretary of the concerend Ministry alone can asist the Board. This is because in respect of Schedule 'A' post, officer of the Grade of Additional Secretary from organised from organised services are invited for the interviews; that for the post of selection of the post of Functional Directors in Public Sector undertakings, it has been the established practice of the Board to associate the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the concerned Undertaking with the Selection process: that the petitioner, as CGM (Finance) STC was entrusted with the responsibilities of looking after the work of Finance Division by the then Chairman of the STC and the same was not done in consultation with respondent No. 1. This was done by respondent No. 2 merely by way of a local interim arrangement pending filling up of the post of Director (Finance) on a regular basis; that pursuant to the decision of A.C.C. not to extend the tenure of Sh. Gopal Chaturvedi, the then Director (Finance) STC beyond his term of five years, respondent No. 2 initiated the recruitment action for the said post which was to fall vacant on 11.1.1998; that the post of Director (Finance) STC was accordingly circulated on 24.11.1997 as per the usual procedure of respondent No. 2 inviting nominations from various sources while respondent No. 1 approached respondent No. 2 for fresh selection of the post of Director (Finance) STC vide D.0. letter No. 1/6/97-FT(ST) dated 28.11.1997, which was received by respondent No. 2 on 9.12.1997. respondent No. 2 had already circulated the post much before receipt of the said communication. Even the corrigendum correcting the inadvertent error had been issued before receipt of the communication from the Ministry of Commerce, hence it is denied that the respondent had maliciously, deliberately, arbitrarily and schemingly tried to eliminate the petitioner from the selection process and thereby scuttle his chances of being selected to the post of Director (Finance) STC; that 13 candidates including the petitioner were short-listed and called for the interview on 20.2.1998 for which only 11 candidates attended the interview. The respondent No. 2 Board is a body constituted under the Government of India Resolution; that the said Resolution does not provide for any corum for the Board meeting. The Board meetings are held as scheduled and the non-availability of the Chairman or any member on a particular day does not preclude the Board from going ahead with the selection which is an on-going process. This is especially so in the circumstances when the candidates are informed of the meetings much in advance and as per the usual practice, the meetings are not postponed due to non- availability of any member of the Chairman of PESB; that the alt letters/telegrams to all short-listed candidates had been sent on 27.1.1998, hence it was neither practical nor feasible to postpone the said meeting on account of the absence of the Chairman or one of the members of the Board and the interview was conducted according to the established practice of respondent No. 2.