PAWAN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance projected in this Public Interest Litigation is regarding non-adherence to the time limit for holding examinations/interviews for the posts under direct recruitment.

(2.) Vide Office Memorandum F.No.Misc-14017/15/2015-Estt.(RR) issued by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G.Pensions Department of PersonnelTraining North Block, New Delhi dated 11.01.2016 it has been highlighted that there are instances of a long time lag between the date of advertisement for the vacancy and date of examination or interview. Such a delay denies the opportunity to fresh candidates who in the meantime become eligible. All the Ministries/Departments have been impressed that while initiating the recruitment process to fill vacant posts by the method of direct recruitment to ensure that the entire recruitment process including and starting from advertisement notice is completed within a period of six months. Based on the said Office Memorandum, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare department has also issued Office Memorandum dated 20.03.2017 rather impressing upon all the concerned departments that vacancies by direct recruitment shall be filled up within a period of six months.

(3.) Respondent No.3 has issued two advertisement notices one dated 01.05.2017 and another dated 06.07.2017 inviting applications for filling up the post of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors. The lists of eligible candidates have been prepared by the department on 25.10.2017 but till date, the selection process has not been completed. Noticing the uncertainty and its impact on the functioning of the Hospital/Institute, the petitioner claimed to be a public spirited person having no personal interest in the matter in fact, has claimed that he has espoused the cause of general public. The object may be laudable but paragraphs 24 and 25 of the petition give rise to little bit of suspicion because in the said paragraphs, the petitioner has sought for quashment of the selection process so initiated which is totally impermissible. True it is that the process of selection was to be completed within a period of six months. Nonadherence to the time limit does not provide any ground for quashing the process of selection so initiated.