Back
2006 Supreme(Pat) 919
PATNA HIGH COURT
J.N.Bhatt, J.
Dr.Bhupendra Nath Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9434 of 1999 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 2006
Headnote:Service law-Selection for the post of Director of Nava Nalanda Mahavihar-Selection by expert committee-Scope of judicial review-Petitioner challenging his non-selection-Selection made by a committee constituted by the competent authority-No allegation of mala fide, bias, prejudice or perversity in the appointment in question-In the case of judicial review of the administrative action, where selection is made for a post like in the present case by expert authority, the Writ Court has supervisory, jurisdiction-Ordinarily, the Writ Court is not very much concerned With the outcome of selection but is concerned with decision making process itself-If the decision making process is reasonable shown to be not in accordance with law, only then it would stand vitiated by any consideration like irrationality, illegality, unreasonableness, perversity and in violation of law-In the present case, it is the self assessment of the petitioner of having become more meritorious, whereas, respondent no. 8 has been found more merilorious by the expert committee-Advertisement issued by the OSD to the Governor cannot be termed illegal-Mere non-inclusion at some of the members of the Administrative Board of the Institute will also not vitiate the selection process-Selection process conducted by specially constituted committee-So called cry raised in the writ petition is only an outburst of frustration of non-selection-Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 21 to 24)
AIR 1970 SC 150, AIR 1988 SC 2181, AIR 1996 SC 686-Referred to.
J.N.Bhatt, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned his non-selection for the post of Director of Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Research Institute (Institute) situated in Nalanda in the State of Bihar, by invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question, therefore, which emerges for consideration and adjudication in this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the selection of respondent No. 8 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Panth -- alias Ravindra Panth, for the said post is justified or not?
2. In order to appreciate the merits of the petition and the challenge against it, let there be, at this stage a skeletal projection of factual profile relevant to the aforesaid issue and material legal proposition. First of all, a chronology of events as culled out from the records of the case, is necessary. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DATEEVENTS
1.17.5.1999An advertisement for appointment to the post of Director, Nava NalandaMahavihara, was issued in Hindustan Times, an English daily from- Patna under the signature of OSD to Governor, RajBhawan Secretariat, Patna (Annexure -1 ).
2.2.9.1999An interview letter (Annexure 2) was issued to the petitioner under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Culture, New Delhi, for "Personal Talk" with the Selection Committee on 21.9.1999 at 11 a.m. in the office chamber of the Secretary, Department of Culture.
3.18.4.2000An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 2515 of 2000) was filed in this writ application by the petitioner making a prayer to add RavindraPanth as party - respondent and also to direct the respondents not to proceed with implementation of order appointing the said Ravindra Kumar Panth as Director. It was alleged that Ravindra Path was under employment at "Vipassana Research Institute, Dhammagiri, Igatpuri, Maharashtra. By order dated 6.1.2005. the said Ravindra Kumar Panth has been added as Respondent No. 8.
4.4.4.2000.Appointment of Dr RavindraPanth against the post of Director, Nava NalandaMahavihara was published in Hindi daily "Hindustan" published from Patna (Annexure 4) .
5.17.11.2000The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in this case, inter alia, stating that he faced interview on 21.9. 1999. The Interview Board approved three names, namely, (i) Dr SatyapalBhikhu, (ii) Dr RavindraPanth, and (iii) Bimlendu Kumar.
6.14.2.2001.I.A. No. 810 of 2001 has been filed to permit the petitioner to challenge the legal validity of the advertisement and proceeding dated 30.3.2000 of Nava Nalanda, Mahavihara and the offer of appointment of Respondent No. 8 to the post of Director of the Institute as also to restrain him from functioning as Director.
7.4.12.1990.Services of the employee of the Institute has been transferred to the Culture Department, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, by the State of Bihar on request vide Resolution No. 936 dated 4.12.1990 (Annexure-6).
8.14.2.1992.Terms and conditions were proposed by the Government of Bihar in regard to service conditions of the staff and officers as also financial implications (Annexure 7).
9.17.11.1993A letter was sent by the State Government, Bihar, to the Government of India, regarding issuance of authority to sign the Memorandum of Association on behalf of the State Government (Annexure-8).
10.7.12.1993Resolution was issued by the Culture Department of Ministry of Human Resource Development regarding composition of the Society (Annexure-9).
11. .30.3.2000.A meeting of the Board of Management of the Institute was held at RajBhawan in which appointment of Professor/Assistant Professor and Director of the Institute was considered (Annexure-11)
12. 15.4.2000D.O. Letter No. 1042 was issued by the Secretary to Governor, Bihar to Sri NavneetSoni, Deputy Secretary intimating that the Board of Management of Nava NalandaMahavihara had accorded its approval to the appoint
