P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by a citizen, who claims to be a social worker and involved in politics, seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint a regular Director in the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi (herein after referred to as the RIMS), forthwith and also for the issuance of a direction upon the respondents and particularly, respondent No. 4, restraining him from functioning as the Acting Director of the RIMS on the ground that he is not eligible to act as such a Director and also to appoint another suitable person as the Acting Director until a regular Director is selected and appointed. According to the petitioner, the post of a Director in the RIMS had remained vacant right from the date of its formation on 15.8.2002 and there was no justification in not appointing a regular Director for the Institute which was one of the prime Institutes in the State. He points out, that though it was being claimed that a process of selection was being undertaken, there has been no completion of such a process and regular appointment is being delayed without bona fides. One Dr. K.P. Srivastasva was made the Acting Director, but on his death, Respondent 4 has been made the Acting Director. That was mala fide. Respondent 4 had been stamped as an unfit and inefficient person by the High Court in a judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 2001. Respondent 4 had also been reported to be inefficient, uninterested in the work and not having any commitment to the institution and in spite of such a report by the earlier Acting Director, he was being asked to act as Director by the Chief Secretary and this was not in the interests of the institution. Public Interest would suffer if such goings on are permitted and it was a fit case for this Court to interfere.
(2.) ON behalf of the State and the Chief Secretary, the bona fides of the litigation is questioned. It is contended that the petitioner was merely put forward by another aspirant for the post and this was not really a public interest litigation. It was true that attempts were made to make a regular appointment on earlier occasions and the process could not be completed, but this time, the interview of the candidates who have been found eligible has been fixed for 24.1.2004 and there was no need at this stage to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for, either regarding the appointment of a regular Director or an Acting Director. It was true that Respondent 4 had earlier been relieved of his position as the officiating Superintendent of the Institute, but that has no relevance to his being asked to act as the Acting Director since he was the only person qualified in terms of Regulation 9(5) of the relevant Regulations. The writ petitioner did not really have the interests of the institute at heart, but had really an axe to grind and such litigations, at the instance of persons like the petitioner, should not be entertained as public interest litigation. Respondent 4 has contended that it was, no doubt, true that the High Court had asked him to pay compensation to the heirs of a person who died, but the High Court had not found him guilty of any particular act of omission or commission, and it was really an act of collective omission or failure. He also submits that he has filed a petition for review of the judgment of the High Court and the same is pending. He has further submitted that he was the only qualified person who could be asked to act as the Acting Director and the fact that he was relieved of his position as the Acting Superintendent of the Institute had no relevance to the question. His being relieved of his additional charge of the Superintendent was itself the result of a conspiracy. It was, no doubt, true that a writ petition filed, by him challenging that action as WP (S) No. 4906 of 2003 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court but he had filed an appeal against that decision and the same was still pending. The writ petition was filed by a person who was related to one of his rival contenders for the post of Director of the RIMS and he was also a person set up by another teacher in the Institute who was sought to be made the Acting Director, but was removed since it was found that the person who put him in charge had no authority to do so and that he did not have the necessary qualification in terms of the Regulations. The writ petition lacked bona fides and deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) AS regards the main prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint a regular Director for the RIMS, it cannot be said that no public interest is involved in that prayer. Even though the Institute had come into existence on 15.8.2002, there has been no appointment of a regular Director. That an Institute like the RIMS does require a full -time duly qualified and properly selected Director is not disputed. To that extent, the prayer from a citizen that such a Director for the Institute be appointed has to be held to be subserving public interest. To that extent, we are inclined to the view that the writ petition can certainly be entertained as a public interest litigation.;