LexG. JAYALAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 3 S.C.R. 868 G. JAYALAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4665 of 2013) MAY 29, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: c Selection - Panel not indicating preference - Effect of - Post of Director General, All India Radio - Committee recommending a panel of three persons with name of appellant at SI. No. 1 - When asked, Selection Committee, _subsequently, shortlisted the candidates and made 0 recommendation in order of preference - Name of fourth respondent shown at sl. No. 1 - Held: The panel sent earlier does not specifically state that the recommendations were in order of merit or in order of preference as determined by the Board - On the contrary, it is suggestive of the fact that the E Board has placed the names in the same order as sent by the department for consideration - The subsequent recommendation was made in order of preference by deliberation - Even after three members were substituted, it · would not have made any difference as majority of the earlier Members were there and they had given preference in favour F of fourth respondent - Therefore, there is no flaw in the three Members participating in the short-listing of the names and giving preference - There is no element of legal malice. Selection - Recommendation in order of preference - G The term 'preference' - Connotation of. Advertisements were issued to fill up the posts of Director General in All India Radio and Doordarshan on 20.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively. The Committee H 868 G. JAYALAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 869 constituted to make the recommen~ations for A appointment to the said two posts forwarded three names for the post of Director General, Doordarshan and names of two persons, viz. the appellant and the fourth respondent, for the post of Director General, All India Radio. On receipt of the recommendations, a letter dated B 21.3.2011 was circulated by the Officer on Special Duty in Prasar Bharati to all the Members of the Selection Committee stating therein that since the names recommended were not put in any particular order of preference, the same be put in the order of preference. c Thereafter, the majority of the members of the Selection Committee placed the fourth respondent in order of preference at No. 1 for the post of Director General, All India Radio. The recommendations were sent to Government of India as per letter dated 21.3.2011. 0 The appellant preferred an O.A. before the Tribunal seeking quashment of the recommendations dated 21.3.2011 and also sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents to act as per the recommendations dated 15.3.2011 contending that therein he was placed at No. 1 E in order of preference for appointment to the post of Director General, All India Radio. The Tribual as well as the High Court did not accept the case of the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Conceptual preference, fundamentally, would mean that all aspects, namely, merit, suitability, fitness, etc. being equal, preference is given regard being had to some other higher qualifications or experience, G etc. [para 12] [878-G] Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y. V. V.R. Srinivasu/u and Others 2003 (3) SCR 742 = 2003 (5) sec 341 - referred to H 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A 1.2. In the case at hand, it is not disputed that both the candidates were eligible. If the minutes of the meeting are minutely studied, it is perceptible that three departmental candidates were interviewed for the post of Director General, All India Radio. The names of the B appellant and the fourth respondent were placed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. When the Committee gave its recommendations, it also placed them in the same seriatim. The language used in paragraph 4 of the minutes states that taking into account the consideration c of overall merit and experience and with due regard to the assessment of suitability, the Board decided to forward the recommendations to the Government of India. But it does not specifically state that the recommendations were in order of merit or in order of preference as 0 determined by the Board. On the contrary, it is suggestive of the fact that the Board has placed the names in the same order as sent by the department for consideration. [para 13] [879-D-G] 1.3. It cannot be said that any wrongful act has been E done to i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.