Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kait, J.
SUDHIR HILSAYAN - Appellant
Vs.
CHAIRMAN, DR. AMBEDKAR FOUNDATION AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 8428 of 2010
Decided On : 11-12-2012
For the Appellant : Manoj V. George, Mr. K. Gireesh Kumar and Mr. Alex Joseph
For the Respondent: L.K. Garg
The appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment without a justifiable reason. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all vacancies, but the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
Headnote:
Editor Selection Process - Dr. Ambedkar Foundation - Recruitment Rules, 2006, Recruitment Rules (old) of the Regular Post of Editor - The court discussed the Recruitment Rules, the selection process, and the appointment of the Editor. It highlighted the importance of following the Recruitment Rules and the need for a justifiable reason to decline appointment to a person who is on the select panel.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a highly qualified individual with 15 years of editorial experience, applied for the post of Editor in Dr. Ambedkar Foundation. Despite being selected by the Selection Committee, the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was duly selected as per the Recruitment Rules and was suitable for the post based on qualifications and experience. It noted the efforts made by the respondents to upgrade the post and the poor response to the advertisement due to the passion required for the work.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner despite being selected for the post of Editor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the Recruitment Rules and the need for a justifiable reason to decline appointment to a person who is on the select panel. It also considered the efforts made by the respondents to upgrade the post and the passion required for the work.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner within four weeks.
Suresh Kait, J.
Vide the instant petition, petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to complete the selection process for the post of Editor. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Scholar with Masters Degree in Agronomy and Mass Communication with Diploma in Journalism from Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), New Delhi, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. He is highly qualified with 15 years of editorial experience.
2. It is submitted that initially, petitioner was appointed as Editor on contractual basis in Dr. Ambedkar Foundation i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 3 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Foundation was set up on the recommendation of the Centenary Celebrations Committee of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as a Society to implement the programmes and activities for furthering the ideology and message of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar among the masses in India, implementing a plan to have various publications by the Foundation and to have a post of Editor in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T).
3. It is further submitted that in the year 2006, the post of Editor became vacant and the Foundation tried to obtain good talented persons through direct recruitment to fill up the post of Editor. However, it failed in its endeavour twice and could not attract qualified people for the post which had a commitment to the cause. Thus, the Foundation brought out an amendment to the Recruitment Rules thereby maximum age limit was increased from 30 yrs. to 40 yrs. and it was notified. Accordingly, the respondents decided to advertise the post of Editor in Dr. Ambedkar Foundation (DAF). The petitioner being eligible under the amended Recruitment Rules applied for the sanctioned post in Group 'B' along with 73 other candidates. Name of the petitioner was there in the list of shortlisted candidates.
4. Thereafter, a Selection Committee was constituted under the Recruitment Rules which interviewed the candidates and the petitioner topped the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. The entire selection process was completed way back in June, 2009, however, till date appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there are 2 sanctioned posts of Editor in Dr. Ambedkar Foundation i.e. one contractual post of Editor in Project of "Collected Works of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar (CWBA)" and another post of Editor (Regular) in the Foundation for editing monthly Magazine "Samajik Nyay Sandesh Patrika".
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has worked on the contractual post on contract basis as Editor in the Project "Collected Works of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar (CWBA)" from 31.01.2007 to 31.03.2011.
7. It is further submitted that the regular post of Editor has been lying vacant since March, 2006 and the post was advertised couple of times to which there has been a poor response.
8. As per the Recruitment Rules (old) of the Regular Post of Editor, the upper age limit was 30 years. To get a better response and to enable the experienced persons to apply for the post, the upper age limit for the post was increased to 40 years with the approval of the General Body of the Foundation in its meeting held on 12.11.2008.
9. The regular post of Editor falls under the unreserved category. It carries Pay Scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500 (pre-revised). After taking the approval from the competent authority an advertisement was issued in the Times of India and Hindustan Times both dated 28.02.2009 and in the Employment News dated 14.03.2009 (Hindi and English) for filling up this post. In response to this 74 number of applications were received within the given time i.e. 31.03.2009 and six applications were received after that. The applications received late were not taken up for scrutiny.
10. After scrutinizing the applications, 4 names including the name of the petitioner met the required
