The court upheld the selection process for the Director (Operations) position, affirming that the petitioner did not meet the mandatory experience criteria as outlined in the advertisement.

ORDER :

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for interview scheduled on 11.10.2023 for the post of Director (Operations), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) as arbitrary and illegal and to nullify the selection of 3^rd respondent vide Minute No.1 of the PESB Meeting No.33 of 2024 held on 21.05.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to entertain the petitioner to the said post.

2. Initially, the writ petition was filed challenging the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not calling the petitioner for an interview. Later, upon the selection of the third respondent to the post, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 seeking an amendment of prayer to nullify the selection of the third respondent. The said petition was ordered on 18.11.2024.

3. a) Averments in brief, in the affidavit, are that the petitioner joined RINL on 16.12.1987 as Management Trainee and worked in different departments i.e. Marketing, Research and Developments under Works Division, Vigilance Department, Works Contract dealing with contracts of Operation and Maintenance of VSP, Forged Wheel Plant, Lalganj and Projects Division handling all the operation and Maintenance of FWP and also Projects of RINL.

b) While the petitioner worked at Research and Development, he was deputed to the Vigilance Department vide Office Order No.PI/ES- I/03/2007/1032 dated 31.10.2007 (Ex.P3) by maintaining a line of promotion in the parent department. The petitioner was reverted back to the Works Division and posted at Works Contracts vide Office Order No.18/HR/EE/TO-04/344 dated 29.03.2018 and the petitioner was relieved from the Vigilance Department vide Order Ref.No.Vig.B4A/1194 dated 28.07.2018 (Ex.P4). The petitioner was transferred to Forged Wheel Plant, Lalganj of RINL vide Office Order No.20/HR-EE/TO-19/e- dak, dated 30.05.2020 (Ex.P5). The petitioner was associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant from the posting at Research and Development in 2007. Thus, he had 16 years of experience in plant operations and maintenance.

c) Be that as it may, the 1^st respondent issued an advertisement calling for applications to the post of Director (Operations) in RINL (Ex.P1). The petitioner applied for the same, however, his name was not shortlisted for an interview. The 4^th respondent, in fact, recommended the candidature of the petitioner after due certification to the post of Director (Projects). The petitioner was declared, as the senior most, among the internal candidates, who submitted applications to the post of Director (Operations).

d) The 3^rd respondent wrongly claimed that he worked as Deputy General Manager at RINL in his application. The 1^st respondent failed to verify the same from the 4^th respondent before short-listing. The appointment of 3^rd respondent as the Director (Production) in M/s Braithwaite from 31.10.2018 to 27.05.2023 is tenure-based contract employment. The 3^rd respondent lost his contract post after completion of tenure. The 3^rd respondent claimed that he worked as an incharge Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Braithwaite from 28.05.2023 to 11.08.2023. The post of Executive Director (Operations) under the 3^rd respondent was created and advertised on 14.10.2023 for the 3^rd respondent’s continuation. An enquiry by the Vigilance, Railway Board is pending and thus, the selection of 3^rd respondent is contrary to the recruitment notification and hence, it is liable to be set aside.

4. The 3^rd respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking impleadment and the same as allowed on 22.04.2024. The 4^th respondent filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 seeking impleadment and the same as allowed on 18.11.2024.

5. The 3^rd respondent filed a counter