B.L. AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the nomination of respondent no.3 K.C. Gupta as Director (Technical) in the Board of Directors of the JVVNL, which is a company wholly owned by the government.

(2.) Shri Ashok Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was Chief Engineer, was senior than respondent no.3. He ought to have been therefore preferred for being nominated as Director (Technical). It has been consistent practice of the Government that only Chief Engineers are nominated as the technical member of the Board on the basis of seniority. Instances of eight such persons have been given in para 17 of the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had better and comparative cleaner service record while there were complaints against the respondent no.3. Petitioner has asserted in para 23 that respondent no.3 had not been taking keen interest in the matter of construction of 33 KV Line for Mahendra Sez. On that basis, Chairman of the JVVNL wrote to him. It is submitted that even though the Government has the discretion to nominate any one as Director (Technical) but then such discrimination has to be exercised judicially consistent with the past practice and in a fair and reasonable manner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and argued that according to Clause 31 of the Articles of Association, the Government of Rajasthan has the right to nominate and appoint all the Directors of the Board of the company. It has also the right to remove any Director at any time at its absolute discretion and then fill in the vacancies occurred as a result of such removal. It is contended that it is not necessary for the Government to make nomination from amongst the working Engineers of the same company. Even an outsider, who is considered suitable and competent to act as Director (Technical), can be nominated. Seniority therefore is not a criteria for making such nomination. Learned counsel submitted that even then the Government had considered both the petitioner and respondent no.3 prior to making the nomination. Referring to comparative chart showing credences of both petitioner and respondent no.3, learned counsel submitted that respondent no.3 was considered more meritorious than the petitioner because he holds the post graduate qualification i.e. M.E. (Electric) (Hons.) whereas the petitioner does not have any such qualification. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been keeping fit because he had recently undergone kidney transplantation and that the post of Director (Technical) requires onerous responsibilities to discharge and lot of field work is involved. It is therefore cannot be said that the nomination of respondent no.3 has been made by way of abuse of power or otherwise favour him.