Writ Petition (Civil) No.3692 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No.3692/2010 & CM Nos.7390-92/2010 % Date of Decision: 13th August, 2010. B.L. NARSIMHULU . . . Petitioner through : Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. . . .Respondent through: Nemo. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. The National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as „the NHAI‟) had made certain selections to the post of Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for which purpose Selection Committee held its meeting on 21.11.2006. Four persons were shortlisted and recommended for appointment to the said post. One Mr. Rajesh Gupta, who was working as Manager (Finance and Accounts) in the NHAI, had also applied for the aforesaid post of Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts), but was not selected. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) by filing OA against his non-selection. In the said OA, he also Writ Petition (Civil) No.3692 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 impleaded three out of four persons, who were selected for appointment to the said post i.e. the petitioner herein was not impleaded. Mr. Gupta had questioned the constitution of the Selection Committee, as invalid and in violation of the Rules. He had also contended that those three persons, who were selected, did not fulfil the requisite qualifications and experience as per the Regulations which was necessary to become eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy General Manger (Finance & Accounts). 2. The Tribunal allowed the OA vide orders dated 29.09.2008 accepting the aforesaid submissions. NHAI filed writ petition thereagainst before this Court, which was also dismissed affirming the order of the Tribunal. 3. The present petitioner is the fourth person, which was recommended for selection. However, he could not be appointed to the said post, as the very constitution of the Selection Committee was held to be improper and illegal and the entire selection process was quashed on this ground. 4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner making a grievance that some of the observations made by the Tribunal as well as this Court may hold against the petitioner insofar as his eligibility is concerned. We do not find such apprehensions to be well founded. Reading of the judgment of the Tribunal would make it manifest that the Tribunal had examined the eligibility of other three persons recommended for Selection (and not the petitioner, Writ Petition (Civil) No.3692 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 fourth one) and in that context, it came to the conclusion that they did not have the requisite experience as per the Regulations. Likewise, this court accepted the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal recording the concession of the learned Senior counsel, who appeared for the NHAI, as it was accepted that those three persons did not have the requisite experience. Insofar as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it was neither dealt with nor any finding was given qua him. 5. The relevant Regulation mentioning educational qualification and experience, etc. to become eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy General Manager, inter alia, stipulates twelve years experience in the following manner: “Experience At least 12 years service in a responsible position in the finance/accounts Deptt. related to major infrastructural project of the Govt. of India or a Govt. undertaking or an Autonomous Body or a Commercial Organisation of repute.” 6. The case of the petitioner is that an Autonomous Body or a Commercial organization of repute is also included as a Department in which a candidate can have 12 years service in a responsible position in Finance/Accounts department related to major infrastructural project. His averment is that he has been working as Deputy General Manager in Kenara Bank for last seventeen years. 7. Suffice is to state that as this was not the issue raised or discussed in the aforesaid proceedings, it is not necessary for us to comment upon the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion Writ Petition (Civil) No.3692 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill-founded. We make it clear that we have not decided as to whether the petitioner is qualified to be considered for this post or not. If the petitioner has applied for the said post, it is for the NHAI, in the first instance, to consider his application to take a view as to whether the petitioner is eligible or not. If his application is rejected, it would provide him a cause of action to challenge such rejection by filing appropriate Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1997 SC 1125], this writ petition is not even maintainable, as the aggrieved person is to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance. 8. This writ petition along with CMs are accordingly dismissed. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE AUGUST 13, 2010. pmc