C.S.RAJAN
G. Santhana Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
C.S. Rajan, J.
1. The petitioner working in the service of the second respondent as Joint Director. The post to which the petitioner is aspiring to be appointed is Resident Director, Trade Promotion Office, New York. The method of selection and qualification to the above post have been prescribed by Ext. P1 notification by the second respondent. The selection to the above post is to be made by the Government of India after considering recommendation of the Committee consisting of a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) (Second respondent) and the Director, MPEDA. The appointment will be made by the MPEDA subject to the approval of the Government of India. The prime objection to the selection of the fourth respondent, who is an I. A. S. Officer is that as required under the rules (Ext. P1) no Committee was constituted including the representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, MPEDA and Director of MPEDA. Therefore, it was stressed in the Original Petition that the committee itself has not been constituted with an ulterior motive to appoint the 4th respondent and it is malafide and biased.
2. A statem
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.