AMMINI GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Writ Petition is the appointment of the fifth Respondent as Lab Attendant and directing the Respondents to conduct the interview afresh and other directions.

(2.) THE Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha [for short 'Council'], is a society registered under Societies Registration Act. THE aims and objects of the Council are to carry out research in Ayurveda and Siddha Systems of Medicines on modern lines, as per the memorandum of Association and Rules, Regulations and bye-laws of the council. Governing body is in-charge of the management of the affairs of the Society. Appointments are subject to approval of the President of the Central Council " Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India.

(3.) ON behalf of the Petitioner, it was firstly contended that selection and appointment of the fifth Respondent by the Selection Committee is not on merits and experience, but only on extraneous consideration. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the fifth Respondent was working as Kitchen Assistant and his nature of work is in no way connected with the post of Lab Attendant, whereas the Petitioner is having 22 years of experience working in the lab. Qualification prescribed for the appointment to the post of Lab Attendant/Group 'C' post is Matriculation or equivalent, with one year experience in the lab. Age limit prescribed under the Rules for the Departmental candidate is upto the age of 40 years, 43 years for OBC and 45 years in case of SC/ST candidates. ON 11.08.2000, the fourth Respondent had called for applications for recruitment to the post of Lab Attendant. About six candidates, including the fifth Respondent, were called for interview to the post of Lab Attendant. Selection Committee has short listed three candidates. Name of the fifth Respondent figured top in the panel and it was recommended by the Selection Committee. The recommendation of the Selection Committee containing names of the short listed candidates was sent to Central Council, New Delhi. Upon consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Central council granted approval for appointment of the fifth Respondent has Lab Attendant in the scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/-. After the Central Council granted approval and conveyed to the Institute that order of appointment can be issued to the incumbent, the third Respondent Institute has issued the appointment Order to the fifth Respondent. By going through the records, it is seen that the procedure contemplated under Recruitment Rules has been observed and the appointment of the fifth Respondent is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not go into the merits of the decision. However, it may be pointed out that the fifth Respondent is said to have worked as Lab Attendant in a private hospital for the period between 1981 to 1982, prior to his joining the third Respondent Institute as Kitchen Assistant in 1982 and is said to be having previous experience. The contention of the Petitioner that the appointment of the fifth Respondent is not on merit but on extraneous considerations, has no force.