The Delhi High Court said the Centre did not comply with the timelines set by it to complete the process
The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to place before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet a 2019 proposal for appointment to the post of Director, National School of Drama, and set aside a subsequent selection process initiated in 2020.
Justice Jyoti Singh said that if the name of Dr. J. Thulaseedhara Kurup, who filed a petition for appointment to the post as per the result of a selection process initiated in 2018, if approved, he shall be appointed to the post of Director, NSD forthwith.
The exercise shall be carried out by the Ministry of Culture within two weeks, said the judge who observed that despite being duly qualified and eligible for the post, the petitioner "became a victim of the circumstances and the delay in the process of selection, which remains unexplained and unjustified".
In view of the material placed before it, the court noted that the petitioner was in the first position in the merit list.
The court allowed the petition with a direction that costs of Rs 25,000 be paid to the petitioner by the Ministry.
Kurup claimed that his name was recommended for the post but the Ministry of Culture instead of concluding the selection process on time, raised issues concerning his qualifications.
During the pendency of the petition, a fresh notification was issued by the authorities in 2020 inviting applications for the post of Director, NSD.
"It is a settled law that a candidate has right of consideration and had Respondent No.2 (Ministry of Culture) acted diligently, the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.2 would have received consideration by Respondent No.3 (ACC). Petitioner has clearly been wronged and in my view, his case deserves consideration by Respondent No.3, in accordance with the law," the judge said in her order passed on November 16.
The court stated that the Centre did not comply with the timelines set by it to complete the process in a time-bound manner and observed that it was clear from the files and the affidavits that efforts were made to delay and stall the process.
"Even today, before this Court, the explanation for delay borders on the usual and routine reasons, i.e. movement of files from one Department to the other, inter-departmental consultations, queries and clarifications and finally, the plea of validity of the panel.
"As afore-noted, the movement of the file and the communications by Respondent No.2 do not satisfy the conscience of this Court that diligent steps were taken by Respondent No.2 to ensure that timelines are adhered to not only because of the hanging sword of the DoPT O.M. but also the need to abide by the binding and enduring directions of a Court of Law. After perusing the files and the affidavits, the position is crystal clear that efforts were made to delay and stall the process," the court said.
"For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Notification dated July 17, 2020, and the process of selection pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to place the recommendation of Respondent No.1 along with its proposal dated July 11, 2019, before Respondent No.3 for its consideration," the court ordered.