UDAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner -appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.11.1998, passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ application filed by him challenging the appointment of respondents no. 6 to 8 to the posts of Producer in the State Institute of Educational Technology, an autonomous body (hereinafter referred to as the SIET) on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification as per term of the advertisement, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are that the SIET was set up in the year 1984 -85 by the Central Government, along with other such Institutes in the State of Bihar with other States. It was funded by the Central Government and later on the State Government made the Institute as autonomous by resolution dated 14.1.1994 and, thereafter, it has been registered as a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act and is governed by its bylaws. On 25.11.1995 the Executive Committee of the SIET decided to fill up the post of Producer and other posts and, accordingly, constituted a Selection Committee consisting of the following persons including the experts : -

(3.) THE writ petitioner -appellant and others including respondents no. 6 to 8 applied for the said post and mode of selection was on the basis of interview. The candidates for the post of Producer were interviewed on 20.9.1996. Twenty seven candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee including the appellant, respondents no. 6 to 8 and others. The Selection Committee, after taking interview of the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview as well as on examination of their works in the T.V. Programmes produced and exhibited, awarded marks. Out of the seven posts, four posts were for general category, one post each for S.C., ST. and extremely Backward class categories. No. candidate of ST. category appeared before the Selection Committee and no candidate in the O.B.C. category was found suitable and, accordingly, the names of four persons in general category, including respondents no. 6 to 8 and one in the S.C. category were recommended. The appellants position was 10th in the merit list. A copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee has been annexed as Annexure B/1 to the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the SIET. The appointment letters were issued on 26.9.1996 and in pursuance of that, respondents no. 6 to 8 and others had joined in September, 1996, and since then they are working.