KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Dr. K. L. Manaria for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He has sought a two-fold relief: (1) for ousting Shri R. C. Sharma, respondent No. 3, from the post of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post, and (2) for a direction against the respondent State to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director.
(2.) ON 25-8 69, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, issued advertisement No. 7 inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of an Assistant Director ( Chemical Section ) for the Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory. The qualifications prescribed were: (a) M. Sc. II Division in Chemistry (b) should have 2-3 years' research experience. Pay: 700-40-1100-50-1200. Age on 14-10-1969: Mini-mum 16 years and maximum 35 years. (16 seem to be a mistake for some other figure regarding age, because it is not understandable that a person of 16 would be a M. Sc. in the II Division with a Research experience of 2-3 years, but what was the minimum age in the advertisement is immaterial ). The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 as also some others had applied for the post. The Commission interviewed the candidates and eventually the Government in pursuance of its recommendations appointed respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory on 3-10-1970. The petitioner avers that whereas he was eligible for the post the nan-petitioner was not, as he was not having any research experience or at any rate research experience of 2 to 3 years as required by the advertisement. The petitioner further took the position that in the first instance respondent No. 3 was not called for interview, but on account of some influence which was made to operate on the Public Service Commission, the latter was persuaded to invite him for interview. Even so the petitioner claims that his name was recommended at No. 2. The petitioner goes on to say that the Government had appointed the respondent No. 3 even though he was not qualif-ed and had turned down the petitioner's case even though he was qualified. The writ petition has been opposed both by the State and respondent No. 3 Shri R. C. Sharma. It is denied that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to be appointed to the post or that the petitioner had been recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment as claimed by him. It is further stated that this interview was conducted by the Public Service Commission which comprised the Chairman and three of its members as also Shri Vishnu Datt Sharma, Home Commissioner and Secretary to the Government. Further the Commission was assisted by two experts in the subject namely, one Professor R. C. Kapoor, Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry, University of Jodhpur and the other Dr. V. S. Murti, Professor of Chemistry, Delhi University. The State in its reply further submits that the respondent No. 3 was holding the post of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, in the Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory since 2-12-67 on temporary basis. Respondent No. 3 had further worked for a period of 6 years as Archaeological Chemist. The duties of an Archaeological Chemist, according to the State, were to carry out research and experiments in chemical analysis, restoration and preservation of objects de art of archaeological interest. Further, according to the State, respondent No. 3 had received training under the Archaeological Chemist for India at Dehradun and was awarded a certificate on its completion. Then the Director of Archaeology and Museums had appreciated his services and awarded him a testimonial. When the post of an Assistant Director (Chemical Section), Police Forensic Laboratory, was created the Government appointed respondent No. 3 on the post as they found that he possessed the academic qualifications and the required experience for the post. Since 2-12-67, the reply of the Government goes on, the respondent had been performing the duties of the post. The Government had to extend the period of temporary appointment of the respondent and accordingly had sought the concurrence of the Commission and the Commission gave its concurrence for a specified period. As the Commission could not select arid make recommendations for appointment of any suitable person, the Commission, according to the State, who had before them the academic qualifications and the experience required for the post had examined the academic qualifications and experience possessed by respondent No. 3 at the time of giving their concurrence. The State further maintained that the respondent No. 3 has been performing the duties of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and had gained research experience in the particular branch of Chemical Examination and Analysis. The State denied that the petitioner's name was recommended by the Public Service Commission. According to them, the Public Service Commission recommended only one name and that was of respondent No. 3 and he was accordingly appointed. Then as regards the interview held by the Commission in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the State submits that once again the Commission had scrutinised the academic qualifications and experience of respondent No. 3 and were satisfied that he was eligible for the post. Then it was stated that the Commission had before them the certificate that was issued to respondent No. 3 by Dr. Satya Prakash, Director of Archaeology and Museums and apart from this the Commission had made enquiries from respondent No. 3 and had further examined the nature of his duties as the Archaeological Chemist with reference to the duties the per-formed as Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and it was on such satisfaction which was arrived at with the assistance of two experts in the subject that the Commission had found the respondent qualified and had eventually recommended his name for appointment. Respondent No. 3 in his reply falls in line with the State and further submits that during the interview the Commission enquired from the respondent about his research experience. He was questioned by the experts and on such questioning the Chairman expressed that the Commission had looked into his qualifications and eligibility and were satisfied about it. The respondent No. 3 further states that the Home Commissioner, who was also present, informed the Commission about the excellent work done by respondent No. 3 during the preceding 2-1/2 years. The case came up for hearing earlier before Singhal J. and in pursuance of an order passed by him on 6-9-73 the respondent No. 3 had submitted a detailed affidavit enumerating the various jobs done by him which, according to him, were in the nature of research work.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that what the petitioner had done in the Archaeological Department cannot be characterised by accepted cannons to be a research work so as to qualify him for the post and further, according to the learned counsel, there was nothing to show that the research work had been done for 2 to 3 years. Learned counsel referred me to various dictionaries and books on the subject of Chemistry and Industrial Research for showing as to what is conveyed by the word "research". Learned counsel argued that the respondents had not stated that any papers were placed by respondent No. 3 before the Public Service Commission at the time of interview beyond Dr. Satya Prakash's certificate and that apart whatever material he has now placed before the Court either in the shape of an affidavit or the published material will hardly make out any case of research. I may briefly refer to the various dictionaries and other books to which my attention was invited by learned counsel on either side. The word "research" according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary page-1930 means: 'careful or diligent search: a close searching: studious inquiry or examination critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories or laws in the light of newly discovered facts, or the practical applications of such new or revised conclusions, theories or laws. ' ;