DIGAMBAR BEHERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, though considered for the post of Director PGIMER Chandigarh, was not selected. Impugning the selection process on various grounds, the OA seeks by way of relief; Quash and set aside the composition and proceedings of the selection committee with all its consequences. Direction to rectify the composition of the selection committee and other illegalities as averred in the OA and hold a fresh and transparent selection afresh confining to nominations received from authorized authorities with all its consequences. Direction to give all consequential benefits to the applicant on the basis of the prayers made. Besides, calling of the records of the case, direction for payment of litigation cost to the applicant, and passing any other order deemed fit, have been prayed.

(2.) On behalf of the applicant, the learned counsel Shri A.K. Behera, would appear. The official respondents No.1 to 3 would be represented by the learned counsel Shri Amit Anand, respondent No.4 by the learned senior counsel Shri Nidhesh Gupta with Shri Tarun Gupta, and the respondents No.5 and 6 by the learned counsel Shri Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Sudarshan Rajan. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of these three sets of respondents. A rejoinder on behalf of the applicant to the counter reply to the respondents 1 to 3 has also been filed. Additionally Gist of Submissions and Written Submissions respectively dated 21.2.2012 and 23.2.2012 have been filed on behalf of the applicant and the respondents no. 5 and 6. We have heard the learned counsels representing the parties and have also perused the material on record.

(3.) At the outset, a preliminary objection would be raised on behalf of the counsel for the respondent No.4. It would be stated that the present OA does not contain any challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.4 as the Director PGIMER. The maintainability of the OA would be questioned on this ground. Shri A.K. Behera, the learned counsel for the applicant, would, however, explain the circumstances under which such a challenge had not been made. It would be submitted that when the OA had been filed, no appointment had been made. However, at the time of its initial consideration by the Tribunal, this fact had been brought to the notice of the Vacation Bench. The applicants request to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the selection of Shri Y.K. Chawla (respondent No.4) as Director, PGIMER and challenge to the same had been allowed. On a further consideration of the matter by the Division Bench, Shri Y.K. Chawla, in respect of whom an appointment letter had already been issued, was allowed to be impleaded as a necessary party in the present case. In pursuance of these directions, vide the MA No. 3315/2011, an amended memo of parties impleading Shri Y.K. Chawla as respondent No.4 besides the Director PGIMER and Institute body of the PGIMER, were also impleaded as the respondents No.5 and 6. Considering these facts, the preliminary objection on behalf of the respondent No.4 is overruled.