1979 (1) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Principal by direct recruitment.
2. Whether the post of Principal was a 'deputation post'.
3. Whether the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exceeded its power by relaxing essential qualifications.
4. Whether respondent No. 6 possessed the requisite essential qualifications.
5. Whether the selection process was vitiated due to bias by Dr. O.S. Sehgal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Principal by direct recruitment:
The primary issue was whether the appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lata Dewan, by the Chandigarh Administration to the post of Principal, Government Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh, through direct recruitment via the UPSC, was invalid. The court held that there was no breach of the instructions issued by the Central Government under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Chandigarh Administration had the option to either directly recruit or request names from Punjab or Haryana. The post was not a "deputation post" and thus could be filled by direct recruitment through the Commission.

2. Whether the post of Principal was a 'deputation post':
The court examined the directions issued by the Central Government under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The instructions indicated that posts in the Union territory of Chandigarh would be filled mainly by deputation from Punjab and Haryana. However, the court interpreted the term "mainly" to mean "substantially" or "as far as practicable." It concluded that the instructions were not binding in perpetuity and that the Chandigarh Administration had the authority to fill the post by direct recruitment if necessary.

3. Whether the UPSC exceeded its power by relaxing essential qualifications:
The appellant contended that the UPSC had no power to relax the essential qualifications without the prior concurrence of the Chandigarh Administration. The court found that there was no statute or regulation prescribing qualifications for the post of Principal. The Chandigarh Administration, in consultation with the UPSC, had suggested certain qualifications, and the UPSC had reserved the power to relax these qualifications in the advertisement. The court held that the UPSC acted within its powers in relaxing the qualifications for suitable candidates.

4. Whether respondent No. 6 possessed the requisite essential qualifications:
The court noted that the essential qualifications were prescribed in consultation with the UPSC and included a relaxation clause. Respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lata Dewan, held a three-year Diploma in Home Science, which was considered equivalent to the required qualifications. The court found that the UPSC had appropriately exercised its discretion in relaxing the qualifications and that respondent No. 6 was qualified for the post.

5. Whether the selection process was vitiated due to bias by Dr. O.S. Sehgal:
The appellant alleged bias by Dr. O.S. Sehgal, Director, Technical Education, Chandigarh, who assisted the Selection Committee. The court found no sufficient evidence to support allegations of malafides or bias. The court emphasized that the burden of proving bias lies heavily on the person making the allegation. The Selection Committee had evaluated the candidates based on merit, and there was no indication that Dr. Sehgal influenced the selection process improperly.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Chandigarh Administration was within its rights to appoint respondent No. 6, Smt. Prem Lata Dewan, as Principal through direct recruitment via the UPSC. The directions under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act were not applicable, and there was no breach of these directions even if they applied. The UPSC had the authority to relax qualifications, and there was no evidence of bias in the selection process. The appeal was dismissed, and the appointment of respondent No. 6 was upheld.