Delhi High Court
Educational Consultants India ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th December, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7577/2011
% EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD.
SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C.N. SreeKumar & Mr. T.G.N.
Nair, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms.
Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for R-1&2.
Mr. Shobha, Mr. Bijoylashmi & Mr.
Raghav Pandey, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The SC/ST Employees Welfare Association of Educational
Consultants India Ltd. has filed this writ petition in public interest seeking
quashing of order dated 29th November, 2010 of the Department of Higher
Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of
India granting extension of tenure of respondent no.4 Ms. Anju Banerjee as
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of EdCIL (India) Ltd. (not impleaded
as a party) for an initial period of three months beyond 29th November,
2010 and the order dated 22 nd February, 2011 extending the tenure of the
respondent no.4 as CMD of EdCIL (India) Ltd. for the remaining period of
five years i.e. up to 28th November, 2015.
2. The admitted position is that the respondent no.4 was on 4 th October,
2005 appointed as the CMD of EdCIL (India) Ltd. for a period of five
years w.e.f. 30th November, 2005 and her tenure was to come to an end on
29th November, 2010 and was entitled to extension beyond five year
tenure, having not yet reached the age of superannuation. The gravamen of
the challenge by the petitioner to the orders aforesaid of extension of
tenure of the respondent no.4 as CMD of EdCIL (India) Ltd. is that the
requisite mandatory Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) clearance for
such extension had not been obtained. It is also the case of the petitioner
that since corruption charges are pending against the respondent no.4, she
was not entitled to such extension.
3. It may be stated that upon the Public Enterprises Selection Board
(PESB) having recommended extension of tenure beyond 29 th November,
2010 of the respondent no.4 as CMD of EdCIL (India) Ltd., the respondent
no.3 CVC vide its letter dated 1st November, 2010 sought complete
information in respect of respondent no.4; the Vigilance Section of the
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development vide its letter dated 9 th November, 2010 informed the
respondent no.3 CVC that the respondent no.4 was clear from vigilance
angle; the respondent no.3 CVC vide its letter dated 2 nd December, 2010
(supra) brought to the notice of the Ministry of Human Resource
Development that there had been a series of complaints against the
respondent no.4 from a Deputy Manager of EdCIL (India) Ltd., levelling
allegations of harassment and irregularities in promotion/appointments;
some of these allegations had been found to be prima facie true; that upon
the respondent no.3 CVC taking up the case for protection of the whistle
blower, the respondent no.4 not only put pressure on the CVO but also
eventually got the CVO's post abolished. The respondent no.3 CVC thus
advised that the said facts be placed before the competent authority while it
considers the case of the respondent no.4 for extension of tenure.
4. The writ petition came up first before this Court on 19 th October,
2011 when response of the respondent no.3 CVC as to whether specific
clearance was required for extending the term of the respondent no.4 for
another five years or whether the respondent no.3 CVC had no role to play
in the matter after it addressed the communication dated 2 nd December,
2010 to the Joint Secretary and CVO, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Higher Education, was called for.
5. In compliance of the order dated 19th October, 2011 (supra), an
affidavit has been filed enclosing inter alia letter dated 6th January, 2011 of
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India to the
respondent no.3 CVC informing that the complaint of the Deputy Manager
was motivated as a charge sheet had been issued to him prior to his making
the complaint; that he thus did not even stand in the position of a whistle
blower and that the abolition of the CVO's post in EdCIL (India) Ltd. was
with the sanction of the Ministry. The affidavit also encloses other
documents to show that the decision to extend the term of the respondent
no.4 as CMD was taken after due consideration of all the facts. The
affidavit also encloses the letter dated 16th March, 2011 of the Ministry of
Human Resource Development to the respondent no.3 CVC closing the
complaints against the respondent no.4.
6. The learned Additional Solicitor General has during the hearing
today also handed over a copy of the letter dated 9th November, 2011 of the
respondent no.3 CVC to the Ministry informing that the respondent no.3
CVC had no role after issuance of the communication dated 2 nd December,
2010 regarding vigilance clearance.
7. We are thus satisfied that there is no merit in the allegation in the
petition of the extension of the term of the respondent no.4 being without
the CVC clearance. We are also satisfied that there is no other illegality in
the CVC clearance.
8. We therefore do not find any merit in the petition; the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 7, 2011
pp..
