G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THERE is a Society known as Process and Product Development Centre, which is functioning at Agra. The Society is wholly owned and managed by Government of India through the Ministry of Industries. Its object is to upgrade technological base of small scale casting and forging units. A selection was made for the post of Director (Project Development) for which the petitioner Arvind Kumar and Respondent No. 4 S.K. Nitsure were applicants. After interview, etc. had been held the Respondent No. 4 was selected for the said post which has been challenged by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main prayers are that the selection and offer of appointment to Respondent No. 4 may be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to appoint the next person in the merit list on the post of Director (Project Development).
(2.) THE selection of Respondent No. 4 has been basically challenged on the ground that he does not have the qualification and experience for the post in question. It is therefore, necessary to set out the relevant part of the advertisement. Qualification and experience - Post Graduate degree in Metallurgical/Mechanical/Production Engineering with specialisation in foundry or forge technology with 8 years experience in foundry and/or forging industries. OR Graduate in Metallurgical/Mechanical/Production Engineering with 10 years experience in foundry/and or forging industry or equivalent OR NIFFT advance diploma or passed Grade IIF conducted by Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Calcutta with 12 years experience in the relevant fields. Out of the total number of years of experience in the above areas, the applicant should have served minimum 5 years at a senior level in the capacity of Joint Director/Deputy Director having a pay scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 (Unrevised) or Rs. 3000 -4500 (Unrevised) respectively. 4. Desirable experiences - The candidates applying for the post having experience in personnel/financial management, production planning etc. at a senior level will be preferred. 5. Nature of duties - Selected candidates will be required to help the Principal Director in product development, production planning, production control and arranging training programme of the sponsored candidates. Sri S.C. Budhwar, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the advertisement clearly provided that out of total number of years of experience in the area of foundry/forging industry, the applicant should have served minimum 5 years at a senior level in the capacity of Joint Director/Deputy Director having a pay scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 (unrevised) or Rs. 3000 -4500 (unrevised) respectively. The Respondent No. 4 had no experience of working in the capacity of Joint Director/Deputy Director and therefore, he does not possess the requisite experience and was not qualified for the post in question. Learned Counsel has laid emphasis on the words capacity of Joint Director/Deputy Director and has submitted that in order to be eligible for the post in question, the candidate must have actually held the post of Joint Director/Deputy Director and if a person has not held the said post and had not worked in that capacity for at least 5 years, he was not qualified for the said post. Sri Budhwar has also referred to several dictionaries where the meaning of the word capacity has been given as position, function, relation, or the role in which one performs the act. Reference has also been made to Law Lexicon by P. Ramanathaiyar where the meaning of the word capacity has been given as a position enabling one to do something.
(3.) SRI Vinod Swarup, who has appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the petitioner himself does not possess the prescribed qualification and experience and therefore, he has no right to challenge the selection or appointment of Respondent No. 4. He has submitted that the petitioner is a graduate in Metallurgical Engineering and therefore, in order to be eligible he should have had 10 years experience in foundry and/or forging industry or equivalent. However the petitioner does not possesses 10 years experience in foundry or forging industry and therefore, he was not at all qualified for being considered for the post in question. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the selection committee which consisted of experts in the field, after holding interview and examining the experience of the candidates had found Respondent No. 4 suitable and qualified for the post and had placed him at serial No. 1 in the merit list and the matter being of a technical nature, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the selection made by the experts in the field of foundry and/or forging industry.;