JANABODHANA SAMATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Janabodhana Samathy represented by Dr. A. Achuthan, a member of its Advisory Board has instituted this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to have the appointment of the respondent number 4 K. Sreekandan Nair, as News Reader/Translator in the Kozhikode Station of All India Radio, set aside. The respondent number 3 and respondent number 4 represented by counsel appeared and made submissions on behalf of their respective clients.

(2.) A solitary post of News Reader/Translator was advertised. 464 applications were received. 254 candidates appeared for the written test held on 26th July 1992. The letter dated 15th July, 1992 a specimen of which is produced as Ext. P-1 to this petition addressed to the candidates calling them for the written test, informed them that "those who pass the written test will be called for a voice test/ interview on a date to be intimated later". Instead of communicating, "a later date" for voice test/interview, the candidates were told in the examination hall that they have to appear for the interview/voice test on the following day i.e. 27th July 1992. The answer papers of the 254 examinees were evaluated by three examiners on 26th July 1992 itself. The interviews were held on the next day. After the interview, 39 candidates were called for audition tests which were held on 28th July 1992 and 29th July 1992. The select list was not published until 18th May, 1993. On 30th September 1992 the Assistant News Editor of the All India Radio, Kozhikode Station made certain nothings, a copy of which is annexed to the petition as Ext. P-4. The note records "it is understood that the first rank in N.R.C.T. selection to the vacant post has gone to Mr. Sreekandan Nair of Trivandrum". The Directorate was taking time to clear his appointment. The note therefore proposed that Sreekandan Nair should be appointed on casual basis as the All India Radio, Kozhikode Station was short of efficient and experienced hands. Accordingly, the names of Sreekandan Nair and Vasudevan who stood second in the test were approved for appointment on casual basis.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the selection of the respondent number 4 suffers from bias and mala fides. The first ground urged is that it was humanly impossible to evaluate 254 answer papers within a few hours on 26th July 1992. If that is so the written test was a farce and a decision to select the respondent number 4 was already taken. Counsel for the respondent numbers 3" and 4 brought to my notice that a substantial number of questions were objective. In view of this statement and having regard to the fact that three, examiners were engaged for this work I do not think that it was impossible for one examiner to examine in a day about 80 answer papers consisting of partly objective answers.