TANUJA GHOSH Vs. CHAIRMAN BOARD OF TRUSTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : Two senior Guide Lecturers of the Indian Museum have challenged the appointment of the respondentno.5 as the Officer on Special Duty (Education) and as a Member of the Project Implementation Team for the forthcoming Bicentenary Celebration of Indian Museum in 2014.

(2.) IT appears that the Acting Director of the Indian Museum had, on an application filed by the respondentno.5 who was a Programme Assistant of Centre for Archelogical Stuidies and Training, Eastern India, expressing his desire to work in the Education Department of the Museum on deputation basis, had written to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India as early as on April 5, 2010 that the Indian Museum was running with acute shortage of staff and most certainly without an Education Officer since July 2008 and expressed the difficulty of filling up the post for various reasons and the consequent difficulties that the Museum was facing. Considering the applicants' educational qualification and working experience the Director was of the view that he was a very suitable candidate for working in the Education Department of the Museum and proposed to bring the respondentno.5 on deputation as an Officer on Special Duty (Education) on the terms and conditions as contained in the said letter. The Director had sought for approval of the proposal with a request to write a letter to the Member Secretary, CAST to release the respondent no.5 for a period of two years on deputation basis.

(3.) THE petitioners claiming themselves as duly qualified for the post of Education Officer have challenged the appointment of the respondent no.5 on various grounds. According to them the post was lying vacant for a very long time. But from April, 2010 they came to notice that the respondentno.5 had been inducted into the employment of the Museum without going through the regular recruitment process and without publishing any advertisement. According to them the respondent no.5 had in fact been appointed for a post which is basically the post of the Education Officer. In support of this contention they have referred to an Office Order dated January 9, 2012 issued by OSD and Project Manager of the Indian Museum which said that the respondent no.5 would be in overall charge in Education Section and would look after all educational activities of this section and exercise necessary control over the Education Department. This prompted the petitioners to file an application under the Right to Information Act and after the answers were received they made a representation pointing out the lacunae in the recruitment process.