9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appointment to the post of Director in National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property (N.R.L.C) on deputation basis. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the controversy surrounding the appointment of a Director at N.R.L.C on a transfer on deputation basis. The dispute arose when only two candidates, including Dr. Nair, were found eligible by the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C) for the position. Dr. Bhatnagar, the third respondent, challenged Dr. Nair's selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking relaxation to be considered for the post. The Tribunal directed a fresh selection process, finding Dr. Bhatnagar equally qualified. However, the Supreme Court noted discrepancies in the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for a proper evaluation of eligibility criteria and the requirement for relaxation. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, highlighting the importance of determining eligibility based on the application deadline. The eligibility criteria for the Director's post included holding analogous posts or having five years of service in a specific pay scale, as per recruitment rules. The dispute arose due to a discrepancy in the pay scale mentioned in the recruitment letter compared to the official rules. The Union of India argued that Dr. Nair's post was equivalent to the required scale, as per a relevant Office Memorandum defining analogous posts. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing eligibility based on duties, qualifications, and experience rather than just the pay scale. The judgment highlighted the need for a proper assessment of eligibility criteria and the application of relevant guidelines for determining analogous posts. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not adequately evaluating the submissions of the Union of India and Dr. Nair regarding eligibility and relaxation requirements. It emphasized the necessity of recording findings on such crucial aspects before setting aside Dr. Nair's appointment. The Court also noted the inconsistency in the Tribunal's decision to consider Dr. Bhatnagar eligible when he himself sought relaxation for eligibility. The judgment underscored the importance of considering suitability and eligibility based on the application deadline and directed a reevaluation of the case by the Tribunal. Dr. Nair was allowed to continue in the post pending the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter. In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal's decision regarding the appointment of the Director at N.R.L.C and remanded the case for a fresh evaluation. The Court highlighted the necessity of properly assessing eligibility criteria, determining analogous posts, and considering relaxation requests based on relevant guidelines. The judgment stressed the importance of recording findings on crucial submissions before making decisions and ensuring a fair and thorough reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal.
|
