G. SANTHANA KRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner working in the service of the second respondent as Joint Director. The post to which the petitioner is aspiring to be appointed is Resident Director, Trade Promotion Office, New York. The method of selection and qualification to the above post have been prescribed by Ext. P1 notification by the second respondent. The selection to the above post is to be made by the Government of India after considering recommendation of the Committee consisting of a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) (Second respondent) and the Director, MPEDA. The appointment will be made by the MPEDA subject to the approval of the Government of India. The prime objection to the selection of the fourth respondent, who is an I. A. S. Officer is that as required under the rules (Ext. P1) no Committee was constituted including the representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, MPEDA and Director of MPEDA. Therefore, it was stressed in the Original Petition that the committee itself has not been constituted with an ulterior motive to appoint the 4th respondent and it is malafide and biased.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The above statement discloses the following facts. A Committee was constituted by the first respondent which included a representative of the Ministry of Commerce and the Chairman of MPEDA. It is admitted that the Director of MPEDA was not included in the selection committee. But a high level committee in the Ministry of Commerce considered the eligible candidates for the post. This committee included the Chairman of MPEDA as well. No malafide could be attributed just because the Director of MPEDA was not included in the Selection committee.

(3.) Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the admitted facts disclosed in the statement filed by the first respondent argued that the very constitution of the committee is illegal and inconsistent with Ext. P1 rules. Therefore, it is argued that the very basis of the selection is illegal and therefore cannot be sustained. In order to drive home the above point the learned counsel cited the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of A.P. v. Mohanjit Singh ( 1988 Supp SCC 562 ). In the above ruling the Supreme Court held as follows: