Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Horo vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 30 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2004(1)JCR553(JHR)], 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1204, (2004) 1 JLJR 601 (2004) 1 JCR 553 (JHA), (2004) 1 JCR 553 (JHA)
Author: P.K. Balasubramanyan
Bench: P.K. Balasubramanyan, Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. This writ petition filed by a citizen, who claims to be a social worker and involved in politics, seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint a regular Director in the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi (herein after referred to as the RIMS), forthwith and also for the issuance of a direction upon the respondents and particularly, respondent No. 4, restraining him from functioning as the Acting Director of the RIMS on the ground that he is not eligible to act as such a Director and also to appoint another suitable person as the Acting Director until a regular Director is selected and appointed. According to the petitioner, the post of a Director in the RIMS had remained vacant right from the date of its formation on 15.8.2002 and there was no justification in not appointing a regular Director for the Institute which was one of the prime Institutes in the State. He points out, that though it was being claimed that a process of selection was being undertaken, there has been no completion of such a process and regular appointment is being delayed without bona fides. One Dr. K.P. Srivastasva was made the Acting Director, but on his death, Respondent 4 has been made the Acting Director. That was mala fide. Respondent 4 had been stamped as an unfit and inefficient person by the High Court in a judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 2001. Respondent 4 had also been reported to be inefficient, uninterested in the work and not having any commitment to the institution and in spite of such a report by the earlier Acting Director, he was being asked to act as Director by the Chief Secretary and this was not in the interests of the institution. Public Interest would suffer if such goings on are permitted and it was a fit case for this Court to interfere.
2. On behalf of the State and the Chief Secretary, the bona fides of the litigation is questioned. It is contended that the petitioner was merely put forward by another aspirant for the post and this was not really a public interest litigation. It was true that attempts were made to make a regular appointment on earlier occasions and the process could not be completed, but this time, the interview of the candidates who have been found eligible has been fixed for 24.1.2004 and there was no need at this stage to issue a writ of mandamus as sought for, either regarding the appointment of a regular Director or an Acting Director. It was true that Respondent 4 had earlier been relieved of his position as the officiating Superintendent of the Institute, but that has no relevance to his being asked to act as the Acting Director since he was the only person qualified in terms of Regulation 9(5) of the relevant Regulations. The writ petitioner did not really have the interests of the institute at heart, but had really an axe to grind and such litigations, at the instance of persons like the petitioner, should not be entertained as public interest litigation.
3. Respondent 4 has contended that it was, no doubt, true that the High Court had asked him to pay compensation to the heirs of a person who died, but the High Court had not found him guilty of any particular act of omission or commission, and it was really an act of collective omission or failure. He also submits that he has filed a petition for review of the judgment of the High Court and the same is pending. He has further submitted that he was the only qualified person who could be asked to act as the Acting Director and the fact that he was relieved of his position as the Acting Superintendent of the Institute had no relevance to the question. His being relieved of his additional charge of the Superintendent was itself the result of a conspiracy. It was, no doubt, true that a writ petition filed, by him challenging that action as WP (S) No. 4906 of 2003 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court but he had filed an appeal against that decision and the same was still pending. The writ petition was filed by a person who was related to one of his rival contenders for the post of Director of the RIMS and he was also a person set up by another teacher in the Institute who was sought to be made the Acting Director, but was removed since it was found that the person who put him in charge had no authority to do so and that he did not have the necessary qualification in terms of the Regulations. The writ petition lacked bona fides and deserved to be dismissed.
4. As regards the main prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint a regular Director for the RIMS, it cannot be said that no public interest is involved in that prayer. Even though the Institute had come into existence on 15.8.2002, there has been no appointment of a regular Director. That an Institute like the RIMS does require a full-time duly qualified and properly selected Director is not disputed. To that extent, the prayer from a citizen that such a Director for the Institute be appointed has to be held to be subserving public interest. To that extent, we are inclined to the view that the writ petition can certainly be entertained as a public interest litigation.
5. As regards this prayer, it has to be noted that though earlier attempts were admittedly made to have a selection, the process could not be completed for one reason or the other. This, to some extent, justifies the approach of the writ petitioner to this Court for the relief as indicated above. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the process of selection is to be completed without delay and 24.1.2004 has been fixed as the date for conducting interviews of eligible candidates by a qualified panel. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no guarantee that the process of selection will be completed since on two earlier occasions, the interviews fixed were postponed at the last minute and this can happen again. The learned Advocate General himself qualified his statement by saying that it all depended upon the external experts selected to conduct the interview, being available that day. It appears to us that it is for the State to ensure that a proper expert is entrusted with the task, that he is positively available on the date fixed to hold the interview and that the process of selection would be completed. In view of the caveat put in by the learned Advocate General to his earlier unambiguous submission, we think that it would be appropriate to direct respondents 1 to 3 to complete the process of selection as expeditiously as possible and if, for any reason, it is not possible to complete it on 24.1.2004, or on the days immediately following, to complete the process, in any event, on or before 28.2.2004. Taking note of the prior experience, we think it proper to issue a writ of mandamus in this regard.
6. Prima facie, the argument that Respondent 4 alone was the person qualified to act as the Acting Director among those who are working in the RIMS appears to be correct, especially in the context of the Regulation 9(5) of the Regulations. Under that provision, the President who is the Chief Secretary, has the right to nominate a qualified person as the Acting Director until a Director is appointed. Presumably, it was in exercise of this power that late Dr. K.P. Srivastava was earlier appointed as the Acting Director. But it is really for the President to ponder over, whether such an arrangement, without a proper selection, should be continued indefinitely. It is in that context that we have issued, the direction as above.
7. In view of the direction given above to complete the process of appointing a regular Director, we do not think that it is necessary to go into the question whether it was proper to ask Respondent 4 to act as the Acting Director of RIMS or not. After all, the power conferred by the Regulations has been exercised. No doubt, there is a complaint that it was exercised arbitrarily and without reference to earlier relevant materials including the report on lack of commitment on the part of Respondent 4 to the institution and its working. In the circumstances, we do not think that it is necessary for us to pursue that aspect in this writ petition or to consider the argument of the learned Advocate General that in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2004 (1) JLJR 1 (SC) : 2004 (1) JCR 116 (SC) : 2004 (1) East Cr C 186 (SC) the writ petition in that behalf should not be entertained. But to ensure that the process of regular selection is completed, we direct that the present nomination of Respondent No. 4 as the Acting Director will not be continued after 28.2.2004.
8. Thus, the writ petition is disposed off directing Respondents 1 to 3 to complete the process of selection and appointment of a regular Director of the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, (RIMS), Ranchi on or before 28.2.2004, and restraining them from continuing respondent No. 4 as Acting Director after 28.2.2004.