Sunir Khurana vs M.M.T.C. Ltd And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3161 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) No. 7885/2012
%                                                           23rd July, 2013

SUNIR KHURANA                                               ..... Petitioner

                             Through:    Mr. M. Ravi, Mr. P.N.Swaminathan
                                         and Mr. S. Arvinda, Advocates.

                             versus



M.M.T.C. LTD AND ORS                                      ..... Respondents
                   Through:              Mr. B.S.Rana, Adv. for R-1.
                                         Mr. B.V.Niren, CGSC for R-2,4,5 and
                                         6.
                                         Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. Pradeep
                                         Kumar Singh, Adv. for R-3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)


1.            In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks extension of tenure

as a Director (Marketing) of respondent no.1/M.M.T.C. Ltd. There is no

automatic right of appointment and the right is only of consideration of

appointment             in     accordance        with        the         relevant

guidelines/circulars/notifications.
W.P.(C) No. 7885/2012                                              Page 1 of 3
 2.            The case of the petitioner was that he was denied extension

because of CVC advice which refers to the censure order against the

petitioner. Today, however, the counsel for respondent no.2 has placed

before me a letter dated 22.7.2013 issued by the Ministry of Commerce &

Industry, Department of Commerce, alongwith which the order of the

Disciplinary Authority dated 22.7.2013 is annexed, and which order states

that the Disciplinary Authority has decided to drop the charge and to close

the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner- Sh. Sunir Khurana,

Director (Marketing) (now Ex-Director) of respondent no.1/MMTC Ltd.

3.            In view of the above, since the petitioner was not considered for

extension of tenure on the ground that there was an order of the Disciplinary

Authority against the petitioner, and today however, the decision is that the

disciplinary proceedings have been dropped, petitioner will be entitled to be

considered as Director (Marketing), of course, in accordance with the

applicable guidelines/circulars/notifications, and also keeping in mind that it

is employer's decision finally to decide as to whether or not to give

extension of tenure. I clarify that I am not exercising any power of directing

appointment and which power only vests with the Cabinet Committee of

Appointments.


W.P.(C) No. 7885/2012                                             Page 2 of 3
 4.            In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the

direction that the appropriate authorities will now act pursuant to the order

of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.7.2013 whereby the charge against

the petitioner is dropped. Petitioner will now make a detailed representation

to the appropriate authorities within a period of two weeks from today. On

such representation being made, the appropriate authorities will thereafter

within a period of two months, take appropriate decision as to whether or not

the petitioner's tenure has or has not to be extended. Parties are left to bear

their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.



JULY 23, 2013                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib