DESH BANDHU SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common judgment will dispose of all the three petitions together.

(2.) THE first petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation challenging the selection process and, in particular, the possible appointment of respondent No.3 Dr.Aparna Sharma as Deputy Director, DNA. The PIL originally proceeded on the assertion that the selection . process was not properly conducted and including about the compentency of the members of the Selection Committee. However, during the pendency of the PIL, the petitioner therein made some investigation and was able to retrieve documents through RTI, on the basis of which, further grounds have been urged. At the end, however, the principal question that has been agitated by the petitioner in the PIL is about the eligibility and qualification of respondent No.3. According to the petitioner in PIL, the petitioner did not produce any evidence of specialization in DNA analysis/profiling. Secondly, the petitioner did not, in fact, possess 10 years post M.Sc. experience in DNA research training and analytical work. Therefore, respondent No.3 was ineligible to be considered for being appointed against the vacant post of Deputy Director, DNA.

(3.) THE petitioner in the second petition, however, herself is not eligible nor possesses the qualification notified in the publication, dated 1st July, 2009, pursuant to which the selection process had commenced. Admittedly, the petitioner in the second petition did not participate in the selection process. In that sense, both the petitions ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the basis of preliminary objection taken by respondent No.3 Dr.Aparna Sharma. Because of the pendency of these two petitions and interim relief . granted by this Court, although the said Dr.Aparna Sharma was found to be eligible and was entitled to be appointed against the post of Deputy Director, DNA, appointment order was not issued by the Department, which compelled her to file independent Writ Petition before this Court seeking direction against the Department to issue appointment letter, being CWP No.4656 of 2010.