Delhi High Court
B.L. Narsimhulu vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 13 August, 2010
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP(C) No.3692/2010 & CM Nos.7390-92/2010
% Date of Decision: 13th August, 2010.
B.L. NARSIMHULU . . . Petitioner
through : Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Advocate for the
petitioner.
VERSUS
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS.
. . .Respondent
through: Nemo.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as
„the NHAI‟) had made certain selections to the post of Deputy
General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for which purpose
Selection Committee held its meeting on 21.11.2006. Four
persons were shortlisted and recommended for appointment to
the said post. One Mr. Rajesh Gupta, who was working as
Manager (Finance and Accounts) in the NHAI, had also applied for
the aforesaid post of Deputy General Manager (Finance &
Accounts), but was not selected. He approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟)
by filing OA against his non-selection. In the said OA, he also
impleaded three out of four persons, who were selected for
appointment to the said post i.e. the petitioner herein was not
impleaded. Mr. Gupta had questioned the constitution of the
Selection Committee, as invalid and in violation of the Rules. He
had also contended that those three persons, who were selected,
did not fulfil the requisite qualifications and experience as per the
Regulations which was necessary to become eligible for
consideration to the post of Deputy General Manger (Finance &
Accounts).
2. The Tribunal allowed the OA vide orders dated 29.09.2008
accepting the aforesaid submissions. NHAI filed writ petition
thereagainst before this Court, which was also dismissed affirming
the order of the Tribunal.
3. The present petitioner is the fourth person, which was
recommended for selection. However, he could not be appointed
to the said post, as the very constitution of the Selection
Committee was held to be improper and illegal and the entire
selection process was quashed on this ground.
4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner making a grievance that
some of the observations made by the Tribunal as well as this
Court may hold against the petitioner insofar as his eligibility is
concerned. We do not find such apprehensions to be well
founded. Reading of the judgment of the Tribunal would make it
manifest that the Tribunal had examined the eligibility of other
three persons recommended for Selection (and not the petitioner,
fourth one) and in that context, it came to the conclusion that
they did not have the requisite experience as per the Regulations.
Likewise, this court accepted the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal
recording the concession of the learned Senior counsel, who
appeared for the NHAI, as it was accepted that those three
persons did not have the requisite experience. Insofar as the case
of the petitioner is concerned, it was neither dealt with nor any
finding was given qua him.
5. The relevant Regulation mentioning educational qualification and
experience, etc. to become eligible for consideration to the post of
Deputy General Manager, inter alia, stipulates twelve years
experience in the following manner:
"Experience
At least 12 years service in a responsible position in the
finance/accounts Deptt. related to major infrastructural project of
the Govt. of India or a Govt. undertaking or an Autonomous Body
or a Commercial Organisation of repute."
6. The case of the petitioner is that an Autonomous Body or a
Commercial organization of repute is also included as a
Department in which a candidate can have 12 years service in a
responsible position in Finance/Accounts department related to
major infrastructural project. His averment is that he has been
working as Deputy General Manager in Kenara Bank for last
seventeen years.
7. Suffice is to state that as this was not the issue raised or
discussed in the aforesaid proceedings, it is not necessary for us
to comment upon the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill-founded. We make it
clear that we have not decided as to whether the petitioner is
qualified to be considered for this post or not. If the petitioner has
applied for the said post, it is for the NHAI, in the first instance, to
consider his application to take a view as to whether the petitioner
is eligible or not. If his application is rejected, it would provide
him a cause of action to challenge such rejection by filing
appropriate Application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunal Act before the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of
India and others [AIR 1997 SC 1125], this writ petition is not
even maintainable, as the aggrieved person is to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance.
8. This writ petition along with CMs are accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
AUGUST 13, 2010.
pmc
