JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment dated 06.11.2020 wherein this Court dismissed W.P.(C) 4164/2020 preferred by the Appellant herein whereby the Appellant had challenged the selection/appointment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Director General of Respondent No.1, i.e. Indian Institute of Mass Communication (hereinafter referred to as “IIMC”).

2. The facts leading to the instant petitions are stated as under:

a) It is stated that the Appellant here in is a Professor and Dean of the School of Mass Communication at Chitkara University, Punjab, and IIMC is an autonomous institute that has been established in the year 1965 under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, i.e. Respondent No.2, for the purposes of teaching, training, research and consultancy in the field of Mass Communication.

b) An advertisement dated 13.06.2019 was issued by IIMC inviting applications for the post of Director General of IIMC, with the last date of for submission of applications being 19.07.2019. The essential and desirable requirements as sought for under the advertisement are being reproduced as under:

c) It is stated that on 23.05.2022, the Appellant herein had issued a communication via email to the Vice-President of India and the Chancellor of Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “MCRPV”), regarding allegations of fraud against Respondent No.3, Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, who was the Vice-Chancellor of the said University. The email states that not only are there criminal cases pending against Respondent No.3, but W.P.(C) 12660/2015 has been filed against the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Reader at the said University before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

d) It is stated that Respondent No.3 was appointed as DG of IIMC, and the Appellant herein has communicated reservations against the same to various authorities on account of Respondent No.3 allegedly not satisfying the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of DG of IIMC. Thereafter, the Appellant herein preferred W.P.(C) 4164/2020 challenging the appointment of Respondent No.3 to the post of DG of Respondent No.1 herein as well as to direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to probe into the alleged illegal appointment of Respondent No.3.

e) Vide Judgement dated 06.11.2020, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed W.P.(C) 4164/2020 holding that there was no merit in the petition moved by the Appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has moved the instant appeal assailing the said Judgement.

3. Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the appointment of Respondent No.3 is illegal as the Respondent No.3 does not fulfil the basic qualifications as stipulated in the advertisement issued by IIMC. He states that Respondent No.3 neither has the proper educational qualifications nor does he have the requisite work experience to have been selected for the position of DG. Mr. Dalal submits that there are criminal cases that survive against Respondent No.3 and that one W.P.(C)

12660/2015 has been filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Reader at MCRPV and the same is still pending.

4. Mr. Dalal argues that the principal ground on which the appointment of Respondent No.3 has been challenged is that Respondent No.3 does not possess the requisite work experience. He states that in addition to a good Master’s degree, one requires a minimum 25 years’ of experience in the field of journalism/films/media with administrative experience of holding senior positions in Academic/Professional Institution/University Department/Organization of National repute. The learned Counsel submits that in the instant case, Respondent No.3 does not have a Ph.D and despite the absence of this qualification, he was appointed a Reader/Associate Professor, and thereafter became a Professor and conseque