Saturday, April 16, 2011


The Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, has issued notice to the Centre on an application challenging the March 21 revised recommendations of the selection committee for the posts of Director-General of All India Radio and Doordarshan. The Principal Bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.K. Bali and Vice-Chairman L.K. Joshi, issued notice also to the other respondents — the Chairman of Prasar Bharati, the CEO (nominated member) of Prasar Bharati and L.D. Mandloi, Director-General in-charge, AIR and DD, New Delhi — on the application filed by G. Jayalal, who was affected by the revised recommendation. He also challenged the March 30 order by which Mr. Mandloi was given charge as DG of AIR, in addition to DG, Doordarshan.

The notice is returnable on April 18. “The appointment to the post of Director-General of AIR shall be subject to the decision of the application,” the Bench said. According to the applicant, the selection committee met on March 15 and chose three candidates for DG, Doordarshan, in the order of merit: Mr. Mandloi, Tripurari Sharan and Ram Subhag Singh. For DG, AIR, the names of Mr. Jayalal and Mr. Mandloi were recommended in the order of merit. However, even before the panel of names could be sent to the government for appointment, the recommendations were arbitrarily revised on March 21. For DG, AIR, Mr. Mandloi was put in the first rank and the applicant in the second rank. For DG, Doordarshan, the panel was revised in the order of merit as Mr. Sharan; Mr. Singh and Mr. Mandloi. Within a few days Mr. Mandloi was made DG in charge of AIR and Doordarshan.

The applicant alleged that the March 21 revision was done with a mala fide intent to change the serial numbers of the selected candidates to help one or the other of them. Once proper recommendations were made after an interview on the basis of merit, these could not be altered without any justifiable reason or for extraneous considerations. Contending that the revised selection violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution, the applicant sought a direction to quash the March 21 recommendations and a direction to the Centre act as per the March 15 recommendations for appointments to both posts and to appoint him DG, AIR. He also sought an interim order to maintain status quo on processing regular appointments.

Source: The Hindu

No comments:

Post a Comment