ANIL CHANDRA Vs. BIRBAL SAHNI INSTITUTE OF PALAEOBOTANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O. P. Srivastava, Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel. Sri Rajeev Sharma has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 also, namely ; the Director of the Institute, who has also been arrayed by name as opposite party No. 6 to the writ petition. The director Professor Anshu Kumar Sinha (opposite party No. 6) despite being served personally on 10.5.2002 has not chosen to file his power independently.

(2.) The petitioner, who claims himself the senior-most Scientist in Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, has initially filed this petition for quashing the notification/ order dated 28.1.2002 by virtue of which opposite party No. 6, namely ; Professor Anshu Kumar Sinha was allowed to hold the charge of the post of Director of the Institute until further orders pending formal approval of the Government of India. Later on a challenge has also been made to the letter dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure-8) by means of which the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for the post of Director were approved by the Minister of Science and Technology, Government of India and the case was put up to the Government for formal approval and pending approval the opposite party No. 6, namely ; Professor Anshu Kumar Sinha to continue as Director. The challenge has also been made to the letter dated 9.9.2002, by means of which it was informed that the Central Government has approved the proposal for continuance of the service, of opposite party No. 6 for a period of one year.

(3.) The petitioner claims that the continuance of the opposite party No. 6 as Director after he reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.2002 is without authority and without any legal sanction. He has put forward his claim for being allowed to officiate as Director. An advertisement was issued on 10.6.2001 for filling of the vacancy, which was to occur on the retirement of the opposite party No. 6 on 31.1.2002. He has further submitted that the regular selection, which was held as per the advertisement issued on 10th June, 2001 (Annexure-4) to the writ petition in which the petitioner had also participated for regular selection, could not be selected because of the illegal and unauthorized recommendation made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee regarding continuance of the opposite party No. 6, for another period of two years, beyond his age of superannuation.