M K RAINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(J&K)-1986-8-16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on August 29,1986

M K Raina Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioners seek the quashing of appointment of respondents 4 to 2 to the post of Producers in Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar with a further direction to the respondent No. 2 to hold fresh selections for the aforesaid posts from amongst the eligible candidates including the petitioners. The, petitioners have also prayed for the production of the relevant record and. its inspection before issuing any direction in this behalf.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents issued advertisement notice which was published in the "Employment News Issue" of 9 -2 -1980, a copy of which is annexed as annexure 1 for filling various vacancies in Door -darshan Srinagar Kendra. it is alleged that vacancies in eight disciplines mentioned in the advertisement notice were not specified for each discipline as transpired later and the advertisement notice was kept vague with a design to facilitate the motivated selection of candidates. The petitioners were eligible to be appointed as Producers in Music and Dance and Educational Programmers. The petitioners even received letters from the Administrative Officer, Door -Darshan Kendra, Srinagar to appear for interview on 2 -12 -1981 for the post of Grade II in Doordarshan. The petitioners appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee at Srinagar but were not selected. It is alleged that the Selection Committee did not include any expert in the subjects to determine the merit, suitability and performance of the candidates appearing before them. It is specifically alleged that there was bo expert in Music in the Selection Committee to assess the merit, suitability and performance of the petitioner No. 1 and there was also no expert to assess the merit, suitability and performance of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners could not be properly judged in the absence of (he experts. The composition of the Selection Committee is alleged to be illegal. The petitioners have further alleged that according to the advertisement notice it was specified that test/interviews could be held at various places hut in fact no written test was ever held. The merit and ability of the candidates including the petitioners was therefore confined to he interview only which was sought1 to be made without the assistance of experts on each of the subject - It was not even advertised as to how many marks would be allocated for the test and how many marks would be allocated for the interview which is contrary to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 487. No results were published after the interview but lately the petitioners came to know that respondents 4 to 12 have been appointed as Producers in Doordarashan Kendra, Srinagar The petitioners tried to get copies of the appointment orders from the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar but failed in, it because the concerned officers refused to issue the copy on the flimsy pretext that as the orders were issued by respondent No. 2, therefore they should apply to respondent No. 2, who alone could issue such copies. Even after the petitioners applied to the respondent No. 2, no copy was issued to them which forced them to file the present writ petition. The selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 12 has been challenged on the grounds that he same is the result of favour shown to them by the respondent No, 2. The petitioners have termed the selection of the respondents 4 to 12 as ""nepotic" and corrupt." The power by the respondent No. 2 has been exercised with arbitrariness and without there being any guideline which was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India The respondents 4 to 12 are alleged to he the favorites of respondent No. 3 who is alleged to have manipulated their selection as Producers in Doordarshan Kendra Srinagar because majority o them were serving under his control al the time of selection. It is further submitted that none of respondents 4 to 12 was qualified for the discipline of Music. Education, Rural Programme and for the programmers for Children and Woman. The respondents 4 to 12 have been selected even without mentioning the discipline for which they were allegedly selected. Respondent No. 3 is alleged to be guilty of maladies end colorable exercise of power in appointing respondents 4 to 12 as his favorites in the department for which it is stared that the initial process of keeping vacancies in each discipline was kept vague and maneuverable. The Selection Committee is alleged to have functioned as convenient instrument and tool of respondent No 3 and by non -cooperation of the experts in each discipline has rendered the proceedings before the Selection Committee null and void. Any recommendation made by the Selection Committee about the merit and suitability of the candidates including the petitioners and respondents 4 to 12 was therefore violative of the constitutional guarantees and liable to be quashed, The selection and appointment of respondent No. 12 is also challenged on the ground that she did not possess the requisite academic qualification required for the post on the relevant date, i. e. the date for filing applications on 29. 2. 1980 She is alleged to have acquired the academic qualification under University Roil No. 257 in the month of August, 1980.
(3.) THE respondents No. 3 has filed reply affidavit on behalf of respondents I to 3 wherein he has submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of mis -statement of facts and distortions allegedly committed by the petitioners. The writ petition was notaitainable under the rules nor the court fee has been paid for the two writ petitions. The petition was barred by latches. The petitioners who voluntarily took the chance of appearing before the interviewing committee and were actually interviewed along with other respondents cannot now turn round and impute motives to the respondents or to the committee who interviewed them. As per advertisements, the posts were likely to be in eight disciplines, therefore, the vacancies were not specified in each discipline in the advertisement notice as per the recruitment rules. The interview for the posts of Producers Grade II was held on 2. 12. 1981, in which 39 candidates including the petitioners were called for. A particular Kendra of Doordarshan has to select ten persons for appointment in various disciplines according to their programme requirement. Nobody other than the recruitment authority can decide the discipline in which the recruitment is made. It is not the discretion of the candidates to interfere with the appointments of persons which are made ob the recommendations of duly constituted Selection Committee as fulfilled the conditions of the Recruitment Rules, The allegations of malafides, being vague unfounded and baseless, were denied. The candidates including the petitioners were interviewed by the Selection Committee consisting of emicent persons and experts to various fields connected with the Mass - Media., Education, Literature, Art and Music, while selecting the outside assessors for inducting in the Selection Committee due care was taken that experts on all required disciplines got fair representation. The allegation that the Selection Committee did not include any discipline has been denied and it is farther staled that the petitioner No. 1 ne - never raised any objection regarding the Composition of Selection Committee nor the petitioners ever complained that there was no expert in the Music, in the said Committee. The petitioners after having taken a chance of being Selected, now cannot agitate, the same on the alleged omission o. non -inclusion of any expert in any specified field. According to the respondents test does not mean a written test only. Interview was also a test to judge aptitude and general awareness of the candidates. There was nothing wrong in making selection on the basis of interview only. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners was not relevant because that pertains to the admission of the candidates to the educational institutions, and not to the recruitment of the citizens to the service of the respondents. According to the practice prevalent, no result of interview was required to be published and only selected candidates were issued appointment letters by the appointing authority. The copy of the order was not issued as the petitioners never applied in accordance with the roles, without proper stamp duty under the J&K Court fee Act and Stamp Act .The advertisement was strictly as per Requirement Rules as total number of vacancies was advertised. Since no specific post had been created in Doordarshan for any particular discipline, the number of. vacancy in any discipline could not be determined. The disciplines had been specified keeping in view the programme which generally exist at. Doordarshan Kendar. The posts of Proceducers were not only inter -changeable but also were transferable throughout India as per exigencies of service. The candidates applying for the posts never applied to the alleged vagueness about the vacancies either after reading the advertisement or at the time of interview or when they received the interview cards The Selection Committee consisted of the following persons : 1. Sh. S. Shankar, D.G. Doordarshan Chairman 2. Shri A.S. Grewal, Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar. Membr 3. Sh. Nazir Ahmad, Director, Hospitality and Protocol and now Director Handicrafts, J&K State. (for general programme and sports) State Nominee 4. Sh. Malik, Mohd. Syed, Spl. Correspondent, Patriot and former Director of Information J&K for news and Drama and Rural programmes. Outside assessor 5. Smt. Kunti Sahni, Social Worker, Music Connoisseur of Social Welfare Board. Outside assessor (for Music and Dance, and Childrens and Womens Programmes) -do - 6. Prof. Ali Ahmad Saroor, Director Iqbal Institute Kashmir as Educationist. -do - The departmental candidates were in line of promotion and were found to possess requisite experience of the medium as an additional qualification. No fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated or infringed and the petition filed by them was liable to be dismissed. Mr. S T. Hussain appeared for all the respondents in the case on 16. 8. S982, and sought time to file reply affidavit as well as the power of attorney on the next date fixed in the case. Reply affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent 1 to 3 only on 20th Oct. 1982 and no reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 12 despite the fact that Mr. S. T. Hussain had been seeking opportunities to file the power of attorney on their behalf upto 12 -9 - 1984. This petition has therefore to be decided on the basis of *he allegations made b\ the petitioner and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, have perused the record of this case and the record of respondents produced by Mr. Qazi in a sealed cover pertaining to the selection of candidates to the post of Producers in Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar,;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.