BHANU LODH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for quashing/cancelling the communication dated 21/8/1995 issued by the Govt. of India and also for quashing the communication dated 6/11/1995 issued by the Govt. of India relating to recruitment process for filling up the posts of Joint Manager (Accounts), Joint Manager (General Administration), Deputy Manager (General Administration, Deputy Manager (Accounts), Deputy Manager (Technical) and Deputy Manager (Legal) and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner whose name had been figured in the select list for the post of Deputy Manager (Gen. Admn.) and also for quashing the subsequent advertisement dated 14-20/11/98 issued by the respondent No. 3 for fresh selection.

(2.) In short, the petitioner's case coutld be summarised as follows : The Food Corporation of India (in Short FCI) being a statutory body has besn dealing with procurement/purchase of food grains and selling of the same through different State Governments in order to functioning the public distribution system smoothly and as such the administration of the FCI is subject to the provisions of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (in short FC Act). The FCI floated an advertisement in Employment News weekly issue dated 6-12 November, 1993 inviting candidature for different posts. Along with others the petitioner also participated in the said selection process having offered his candidature for the post of Deputy Manager (Gen. Admn.),. The department having conducted the selection process published select list wherein the petitioner's name was figured at serial No. 53. While the petitioner was expecting to be offered with the said post, the Union of India, respondent No.1 herein issued a letter dated 21.8.1995 directing the respondent No. 3, the Chairman, FCI not to fill up the existing vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Manager (Gen. Admn.). That was followed by another letter of Govt. of India dated 6.11.1995 by which the entire process for direct recruitment to various posts once advertised stood declared null and void by the Union of India, as a result the entire process was stopped causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. But curiously the respondent Nos.5 to 11 who were also selected under the said selection process have been appointed by the FCI, of course to the posts of Joint Manager and they have been continuing in service. According to the petitioner, the Government of India having no authority/competence issued the aforesaid directives amounting to interference in the internal management of FCI which is a body autonomy. The impugned communications had been signed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India and as such according to the petitioner, the directions contained in the aforesaid communications have no legal force as the same had never been issued in the name of the President of India pursuant to Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner made numerous correspondences, but of no avail. Hence this case.

(3.) The respondents Union of India and FCI filed joint counter-affidavit on 24.1.2000 resisting the claim of the petitioner contending, inter alia, that pursuant to the advertisement selection process was undertaken, but before the select list for the posts of Deputy Manager (Gen. Admn.). was approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, the respondent No.1 issued a directive on 6.11.95 pointing out the irregularities and as a result, the selection process could not be finalised. But so far the posts of Joint Manager are concerned, the select list was finalised on 26.8.1994 and 19.7.1995 for Joint Manager (A/Cs) and Joint Manager (Genl.) respectively before the receipt of the directives issued by the Union of India dated 6.11.1995. Pursuant to the directives of the Union of India dated 6.11.1995, the selection process so far the posts of Deputy Manager are concerned, stood nullified. Though the joint counter-affidavit acknowledged that the select list for the post of Deputy Manager (Gen. Admn.) was prepared but before that select list could be approved by the Executive Committee, the aforesaid directives from the Union of India was received and everything was stalled. Pursuant to Section 6(2) of the FC Act, 1964, the FCI authority is bound to follow and to abide by the directives issued by the Central Government. There is a reference in the counter-affidavit that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held in a writ petition bearing number W.P. 18960/94 that the FCI is bound to follow the instructions of the Government of India under Section 6(2) of the FC Act and that decision was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 659 of 1996. There is also another reference that the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court also shared the same view in W.P. No. 647 of 1996 holding, inter alia, that the Central Govt's. decision relating to appointment of the officers and staff of FCI is binding upon the Corporation in view of Section 6(2) of F'C Act, 1964. The counter-affidavit further contends that since the Government of India vide letter dated 6.11.1995 declared the recruitment process of November, 1993 being null and void and since the directives was issued by the Government of India pursuant to Section 6(2) of FC Act, 1964, the further processing of the select list had rightly been avoided and as such the petitioner has no case.