Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. Requestion No. 3 :- Bye-law 12(1)(a) provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee which consists of several persons or authorities referred to in the said bye-law. Clause (a)(v) of Bye-law 12(1) provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee with four outside experts nominated by the Governing Council. Admittedly, experts to the Selection Committee has been nominated by the Government as against the mandate of Clause (v) of Bye-law 12(1)(a) of the Bye-laws. When the power is conferred on the Governing Council to nominate four outside experts to the Selection Committee, the said power must be exercised by the very authority and it is not permissible for any other authority how high so ever it may be to nominate four outside experts to the Selection Committee. When the power is conferred on the high body like the Governing Council, the said power has to be exercised by the Governing Council. Since the Government has nominated the four outside experts to the Selection Committee. I have no hesitation to take the view that the constitution of the Selection Committee, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is vitiated. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate General and Sri Shantharaj that subsequent to conferment of power of appointment on the Government by means of amendment made to the Rules, the power conferred on the Governing Council under bye-law 12(1)(a)(v) of the Bye-laws to nominate outside experts deemed to have been deleted and that power is deemed to have been conferred on the Appointing Authority. No doubt, though originally the power of appointment was also on the Governing Council and subsequent amendment made to the Rule, the said power is conferred on the State Government, there is no modification or alteration made either modifying the constitution of the Selection Committee or taking away the power of the Governing Council to nominate four outside experts to the Selection Committee. Further, it is relevant to point out that the Director of NIMHANS who is one of the outside experts has been nominated as Chairman of the Selection Committee. Bye-law 12(1)(a)(i) provides that Chairman of the Governing Council should be the Chairman of the Selection Committee and Pro-chairman of the Governing Council should be the Pro-chairman of the Selection Committee. Under these circumstances, it was also not permissible to appoint an outside expert as the Chairman of the Selection Committee by the State Government. But in the absence of Chairman and Pro-chairman participating in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it may be open to the members of the Selection Committee to nominate one amongst them as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and complete the process of selection. But that does not mean that the Government can substitute an outside expert as the Chairman of the Selection Committee when the bye-law specifically provides that the Chairman of the Governing Council should be the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Therefore, I am of the view that the constitution of the Selection Committee by the Government is not valid in law.

31. Re: Question No. 4: As pointed out by the learned Advocate General the allegations of malafides made are vague, ambiguous and lacks material particulars. It is not specifically pleaded as to who was actuated by malafide consideration in preventing the cases of the petitioners being considered for appointment by relaxing the qualification prescribed. It is not possible to infer much from the circumstances that the constitution of the Committee has not been properly done as required under the bye-laws that the action of the State is actuated either by malafides or other extraneous consideration. I am also unable to accept the submission of Sri Eswarappa that malafide should be inferred from the serious lapse committed by the Government in not allowing the Governing Council to nominate the experts to the Selection Committee and also not permitting the Selection Committee to relax the qualification prescribed. I am of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAMJI LAL (supra), relied upon by Sri Eswarappa is of no assistance to the present case, though the said decision points out that it is not necessary to plead malafide against any particular individual and it can be inferred from the records. The letter Annexure-H dated 27.1.1997 written by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister also will not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner with regard to their contention that the selection process is vitiated on account of malafides. The Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister has nothing to do with the selection process and the said letter also has been given after completion of the selection process. I am also unable to accept the submission of Sri Eswarappa that from the letter Annexure-H I should draw an inference that the Chief Minister had pre-determined with regard to the candidature of Dr. Prabhakar as being appointed as Director of the Institute. There is absolutely no foundation laid in the petition with regard to the said submission advanced at the hearing of these petitions. As pointed out by me earlier, the allegations regarding malafides made in the petitions are vague and ambiguous. Merely because the irregularities, pointed out by me above, had crept in the process of selection, from that it is not possible to take a view that the entire selection was actuated by extraneous and malafide consideration. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of K.P. ROYAPPA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU relied upon by the learned Advocate General clearly supports his submission that there is absolutely no basis for the contention of the petitioners' that the selection process is vitiated on account of malafides. The Supreme Court in the said case, at paragraph 92, has observed thus :