THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13118 OF 2009 Dated 10th December, 2009 Between: Nawab Behbood Ali Khan …Petitioner And Union of India and another …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: The Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad, was brought into existence through the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), enacted by the Parliament. The Act, in turn, is an offshoot of a compromise decree passed in C.S.No.13 of 1958 by this Court. The affairs of the Museum are managed by a Board constituted under Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act deals with the composition of the Board. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of that provision mandates that a person, who is member of the family of late Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur shall be appointed to the Board by the Central Government. The second respondent was appointed in that category in the year 1997 and thereafter, he came to be reappointed vide notification dated 17.09.2008. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the second respondent. In addition to that, he makes a claim for appointment stating that he happens to be one of the legal heirs of late Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur. One of the grounds urged by the petitioner is that the second respondent incurred disqualification on account of the fact that one of his brothers was employed in the Museum. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that his right was recognised way back in the year 1997 and even the petitioner did not dispute his status as a member of the family of late Nawab Salar Jung Bhadur. Heard Sri K.V.Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the first respondent, and Ms Anusha Mahmood, learned counsel for the second respondent. The Act provides for appointment of a member of the family of the late Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur on the Board, under Section 5 of the Act. The second respondent was appointed in that category way back in the year 1997. His appointment was not challenged. It is only the reappointment made on 17.09.2008, that is challenged. The petitioner contends that the second respondent does not figure as a party to C.S.No.13 of 1958, and on the other hand, he has been added a party, on the death of his mother in the recent past. He claims that the appointment of the second respondent deserves to be set aside and that he is entitled to be considered for appointment. The contention of the petitioner as regards the non-eligibility of the second respondent is untenable. Firstly the petitioner has acquiesced in the appointment of the second respondent, which took place way back in the year 1997. In his own representation made to the Central Government as recently as on 01.11.2007, the petitioner admitted that the second respondent is also a grand son ex parte paterna like him. No where in his representation, the petitioner stated that the second respondent is either ineligible or has incurred disqualification. The second facet of this very contention is that the brother of the second respondent has been employed in the Museum and thereby disqualification gets attached by operation of Section 8 of the Act. This contention is equally untenable. Except stating that the younger brother of the second respondent has been employed, no particulars either of the individual, the post or date of the appointment are mentioned. Further the provision is couched in general terms and does not mention the extent of proximity or kinness. Assuming that the younger brother of the second respondent is employed, the provision does not bring about disqualification. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The second limb of the prayer of the petitioner is that his case be considered for appointment as a member. The Act makes provision for appointment of only one member on the Board. As the second respondent has already been appointed, the occasion to consider the case of the petitioner does not exist. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The dismissal, however, does not preclude the petitioner from instituting a suit for declaration of the legal heirs of late Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur, in the context of appointment as member to the Board of the Museum. If any such suit is filed, it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to implead all the legal heirs. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 10th December, 2009 vrn