B SYED SHAH Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for declaration that the selection made to the post of Professor for the Department of maruthuvam on the basis of the interview conducted in Ref. No. 4584/nis-Staff/03 dated 30. 7. 2004 is null and void and for a direction to the first respondent to constitute a fresh selection committee for the selection of the candidates to the post of Professor for the said department.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows: - THE National Institute of Siddha, Tambaram, is functioning under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. THE first respondent had issued Advertisement No. 2 dated 1. 3. 2004 for various posts, including the posts of Professor and Associate Professor in the Department of maruthuvam. In the present case, the disputed question relates to the post of professor. THE required qualification for the post of Professor is indicated as hereunder: - THE petitioner, who was at the relevant time working as a lecturer in Government Siddha Medical College , chennai, applied for the said post. THE petitioner was called for the interview for the post of Professor to be held on 6. 8. 2004. THE petitioner claims that to his shock and surprise, he found that the Selection Committee consisted of, among others, the present second respondent, who was the retired Joint Director in the Department of Indian Medicine. According to the petitioner, the said second respondent had earlier developed enmity against the petitioner as the petitioner was perceived to be a competitor of the wife of the second respondent for the promotional post in the State service. It has been specifically alleged in the petition that such second respondent was responsible for many setbacks the petitioner suffered during his service career and he was also responsible in preventing the petitioner getting Ph. D. Research degree. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the said second respondent was inimical towards the petitioner and stood as a stumbling block in his career. THE petitioner has also asserted that immediately after the interview, he had protested orally to the first respondent. It is specifically claimed that the petitioner in spite of his qualification and experience, was not selected because of the mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the second respondent. On these basic allegations, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection process and for a direction to hold a fresh selection.

(3.) IT is rather unfortunate that the second respondent, in spite of being specifically impleaded, has not chosen to appear and reply to the allegations of mala fide made by the petitioner. The first respondent, who has denied the allegation regarding mala fides in a routine manner, obviously did not have any personal knowledge in the matter. When specific allegations of mala fides were made, it was the duty of the first respondent to ensure filing of proper affidavit by an appropriate person. The only person who could have replied to the allegations regarding mala fide is the second respondent, but such second respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and file any counter affidavit. IT may be that the second respondent being a retired person might have felt to be under no obligation to appear and file counter, and thereby incurring certain expenditure. But, since he was a part of the Selection committee, it was at least the duty of the first respondent to ensure a proper reply from the second respondent. In the absence of any specific reply from the person concerned, prima facie, there is no reason as to why the allegations of mala fide, so far as the second respondent is concerned, should not be accepted.