SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 220

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
The Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Shri A. R. Shinde and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1986, D/- 19-2-1987.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. A. K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. Parmeshwaran and Mr. A. Mariaputham, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. S. C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. N. Shroff and Mr. K. M. M. Khan, Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.MARIAPUTHAM, K.M.M.Khan, M.N.SHROFF, P.P.Rao, S.C.GUPTA

Headnote:

All India Radio (Recruitment of Director General - All India Radio) Rules 1963 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 - Special leave - Post of Director General - Transfer on deputation or direct recruitment - Extending appointment of respondent No. 2 – Appeal against - Post of Director General All India Radio is highest post in organisation carrying with it administrative responsibilities and also requiring from incumbent holding post leadership qualities of a high order - Rules were framed for recruitment to said post as well as to equivalent post of Director General of Doordarshan under proviso to Art - 309 of Constitution and these rules are known as Rules 1963 - These rules provide that post of Director General All India Radio may be filled up either by promotion or by reemployment on transfer on deputation or by direct recruitment – Held, Court opinion that Tribunal was in error in reaching conclusion that respondent No was not qualified or eligible under rules for being appointed to post - Question regarding filling up of vacancy upon term of respondent No coming to an end will shortly arise - Respondent No has by now become eligible for being promoted if he is otherwise found suitable - Competent authority will of Court be required to consider question as regards suitability of respondent No for being promoted to post of Director General in context of filling up of post upon expiry of term of respondent No – Court have no doubt that question will be considered objectively in larger interest of organisation and in larger public interest and an appropriate decision on merits will be taken in accordance with law - Appeal allowed

Judgement

B. C. RAY, J. :- This appeal by special leave is against the order made on 7-8-1986 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi holding that the order dated 10- 12-1986 extending the appointment of respondent No. 2, Shri Suresh Mathur as the Director General of All India Radio is invalid.

2. The post of Director General, All India Radio is the highest post in the organisation carrying with it administrative responsibilities and also requiring from the incumbent holding the post, leadership qualities of a high order. Rules were framed for recruitment to the said post as well as to the equivalent post of Director General of Doordarshan under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and these rules are known as All India Radio (Recruitment of Director General. All India Radio) Rules 1963. These rules provide that the post of Director General, All India Radio may be filled up either by promotion or by reemployment on transfer on deputation or by direct recruitment. These rules also provide that 50 per cent of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation and failing both by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by reemployment or transfer on deputation or direct recruitment. It was also provided that in respect of the second category the exact method of recruitment is to be decided upon in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on each occasion. The post of Director General, All India Radio fell vacant on 14th February, 1985. In accordance with the aforesaid recruitment rules the Additional Director General in the All India Radio who had also served for three years in the post of Additional Director General will be considered for promotion to the post of Director General. The respondent No. 1 Shri A.R. Shinde who was appointed as Additional Director General on 24-8-1982 did not acquire the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the post of Director General, All India Radio as he had not rendered three years service in the said grade of Additional Director General on the said date. The authorities concerned took recourse to make the appointment to the post by transfer on deputation. Accordingly on March 4, 1985 the respondent No. 2, Shri Suresh Mathur who was an officer of the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and was the Secretary, U.P.S.C. at that time was appointed by transfer on deputation initially for a period of six months. Before the expiry of the said period of six months i.e. in July August, 1985, the authorities concerned considered the proposals for continued appointment of Shri Suresh Mathur for a further period of two years. After approval by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet the further continuation of respondent No. 2 as Director General, All India Radio till 3rd March, 1987 was notified on 10th December, 1985 on the basis of the said proposal. This order of continuation of respondent No. 2 as Director General, All India Radio was. assailed by respondent No. 1 Shri A.R. Shinde, the Additional Director General, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi on the ground inter alia that though he fulfilled all the requisite qualifications as provided in the said rules for being considered for promotion to the post of Director General, All India Radio, his case was not considered and the said order was made continuing the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Director General of All India Radio up to March 3, 1987.

3. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the parties quashed the appointment of respondent No. 2 and directed for filling up the post of Director General, All India Radio in accordance with the rules and to consider the case of the applicant holding that the appointment of respondent No. 2 was not made in accordance with the said rules and respondent No. 1 though fulfilled the eligibility qualification was not at all considered and that the responde





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top