Delhi High Court Shri Ravinder Singh Narwal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 September, 2006 JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by his nonselection in the post of Deputy General Manager (Industrial, Public Relations & HRD) (hereinafter referred to as the `said post') of respondent No. 2, namely, India Trade Promotion Organization. The petitioner's case is that respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the Trade Fair Authority, Haryana where the petitioner is working as a Liaison Officer (Industries)cumGeneral Manager, Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi asking for applications for filling up the aforesaid post giving therein the qualification required for the post and the petitioner finding himself fully eligible applied for the post. The eligibility criteria were as under: (i) Masters Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce or Degree in Engineering; (ii) Degree or Diploma in Industrial Relations from a recognized university/institution; (iii) 15 years managerial experience in administration/ personnel management; (iv) The incumbent should be holding ClassI post or equivalent; (v) Maximum age limit was 56 years as on the closing date of receipt of the application. 2. The petitioner alleges that since he did not receive any response to his application he made repeated enquiries from respondent No. 2 and eventually came to know that Mr. M.P. Srivastava (respondent No. 3) had been appointed to the post for a period of three years with effect from 19.1.2004. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not fulfilll the eligibility requirements and, therefore, could not be appointed to the said post of DGM in question. The petitioner then proceeds to say that an agenda note had prepared by respondent No. 2 seeking the relaxation of the age limit for respondent No. 3 and that he had been appointed in a hush hush manner and there was rampant favoritism, nepotism and corruption in his appointment. The petitioner on 25.8.2005 addressed a detailed representation to respondent No. 2 seeking an explanation as to why his candidature had not been considered. According to the petitioner, the procedure of appointment of respondent No. 3 was a mere subterfuge to appoint and accommodate respondent No. 3 with a preconceived mind. It is alleged that the appointment of respondent No. 3 by overlooking the claim of the petitioner was violative of fundamental rights and Constitutional mandates as well as ex facie arbitrary, whimsical and illegal. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari asking for the records of the case pertaining to the appointment to the said post and thereafter to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the said post and also a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for the appointment to the said post. 3. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the counter affidavit is filed by the Senior Manager of respondent No. 2. The petition is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner himself did not fulfilll the minimum eligibility requirement for the said post with reference to prescribed education qualifications and experience, that there has been considerable delay in challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 who has been discharging his duties in the said post for the last two years with utmost satisfaction of his superiors and in the best interest of respondent No. 2 organization, that interfering with appointment of respondent No. 3 will be highly prejudicial to the interest of respondent No. 2 organization, that the court cannot interfere with the selection made by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and can at best review the selection process and that the allegations of favoritism, corruption and violation of constitutional rights and mandates are entirely wrong. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the said post was created with the approval of Board of Directors in its meeting dated 5.7.2003 and according to the directions of Board of Directors a request was made to several public sector undertakings including Trade Fair Authority, Haryana to nominate and send the names of the eligible candidates for consideration for the said post. It is disclosed that there were five candidates for the post including the petitioner but only two candidates were called for interview, namely, respondent No. 3Mr. M.P. Srivastava, and Shri G.L. Pradhan. It is further disclosed that after an interview held on 9.1.2004, respondent No. 3 was selected. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that relaxation of age limit of 18 days was given to respondent No. 3 and for the other short listed candidate Mr. G.L. Pradhan relaxation in educational qualification was given. It was so done because none of the applicants were fulfillling the criteria laid down for the post. Coming to the petitioner's case the counter affidavit says that the petitioner did not fulfilll the educational quali