R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) As prayed, Mr. R. Krishna is permitted to delete respondents No. 6 and 7 from the Cause Title.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the selection of respondent No. 5, Rupak Kumar as Workshop Superintendent. Pursuant to an advertisement made by Regional Institute of Technology now National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (N.I.T. for short) for filling up various posts including the post of Workshop Superintendent, several persons including respondent No. 5 and petitioner applied. The qualifications/eligibility criteria for the post of Workshop Superintendent reads as follows: (1) Workshop Supdt: B.Sc Degree in Mechanical Engineer or Electrical Engineering preferably the former with 5 years' experience of Workshop practice in a responsible capacity in a Major Industry and ability to organise a workshop for an Institute of Technology, or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering with 10 years' Experience of Workshop practice in a responsible capacity in a major Industry and ability to organise a workshop for an Institute of Technology.. Note (a) Qualifications and experience may be relaxed for deserving candidates. (b) The Institute reserves the right to reject any or all applications without assigning any reason. The reason for appointment of respondent No. 5 as stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: This candidate is recommended due to his outstanding performance in the interview and hence the required experience is relaxed as advertised.
(3.) FOR a degree holder like respondent No. 5, as per the eligibility criteria 5 years' experience was required and for a diploma holder like petitioner 10 years experience was required. From the eligibility criteria, it is clear that experience was an integrated part of the eligibility criteria. The respondents could make relaxation in the length of experience of one or other candidate, but admittedly respondent No. 5 had no experience at all whereas petitioner had 16 years' experience. Power to relax could not be stretched to ignoring the requirement of experience totally. It appears from the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the nature of job of the Workshop Superintendent requires experience also. Further, nothing has been brought on the record to show that separate marks were given for educational qualification, experience and interview and the respondent No. 5 secured better marks than the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 was recommended on the basis of his purported performance in the interview. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the selection of respondent No. 5 was not in terms of the eligibility criteria advertised, and the allegation of mala fide gains support.;