M. RAJAMANNAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant of this O.A. was working as Producer in Indira Gandhi Open University (IGNOU), which is his parent organization. On 25.09.2010, the respondents issued an advertisement in employment news inviting applications for the post of Director Song and Drama Division (S&DD) under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. This post was to be filled by deputation. In October, 2010, the applicant applied for the same through his cadre controlling authority. In the advertisement, the deputation period was mentioned as shall not exceed five years. The applicant was called by the UPSC for an interview on 05.01.2012 along with two other candidates. After the interview, the UPSC recommended one Sh. Suresh Sharma for the said post. The Ministry offered him deputation term of two years extendable to three years. However, Sh. Sharma declined the offer of appointment. Following that refusal, the Ministry approached the UPSC to recommend the next name in the reserve panel. Accordingly, UPSC recommended the name of the applicant for the aforesaid post on 20.04.2012. However, the respondents did not issue offer of appointment to the applicant for quite some time. According to the applicant, he was, therefore, forced to approach the National Commission for Schedule Caste. The Commission after hearing the Ministry officials directed the respondents to issue appointment letter as per Recruitment Rules. Pursuant to the directions of National Commission for Schedule Caste the Ministry offered appointment to the applicant on 17.10.2012. In this appointment letter, it was stated that the appointment has been offered subject to the following terms and conditions: -

(2.) IN their reply, the official respondents have disputed the averments of the applicant. According to them, the UPSC had first recommended one Sh. Suresh Sharma for the aforesaid post. However, Sh. Suresh Sharma was unable to accept the offer of appointment. Sh. Suresh Sharma was then informed of the cancellation of his offer of appointment with the approval of the competent authority. Thereafter, the name of the applicant was recommended by UPSC vide their letter dated 20.04.2012 and he was offered appointment on 17.10.2012. The applicant accepted the offer of appointment unconditionally and joined the post on 31.10.2012. In the terms and conditions of the appointment offered to the applicant vide letter dated 17.10.2012, it was clearly mentioned that the appointment shall be on short term contract basis initially for a period of one year. The order of appointment issued on 05.11.2012 after joining of the applicant also stated that the appointment of the applicant was for a period of one year or until further orders, whichever is early. Further, they have stated that as per offer of appointment, the performance of the applicant was to be reviewed on regular basis and the applicant was liable to be repatriated pre -maturely in case the same was not found to be satisfactory after giving an advance notice of at least one month.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 6 has also filed reply in which she has denied all the malicious averments made by the applicant in the O.A. According to her, the applicant was a Director whereas the respondent No. 6 was only an Assistant Director, three stages below the applicant. She has stated that she had no role to play in the matter of appointment of the applicant as Director (S&DD) nor was he involved in the applicant getting only one year term on deputation. She has further stated that she had filed FIR dated 01.05.2013 against the applicant. The Police had investigated this matter and had found sufficient material to prosecute the applicant. The Police had already filed a charge sheet against him which has been taken cognizance by the Magistrate. Further, she has stated that the FIR and charge sheet against the applicant were very relevant material while considering the grant of extension or any other benefit like modification of the terms of the offer of appointment of the applicant and there is nothing wrong if the official respondents take the same into consideration.