ORDER
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage.
3. Respondents have issued an advertisement for Overseas Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Environmental Economics. Requirement for consideration was that Indian citizens holding permanent position in Indian University, Colleges or Research Institutes with a Ph.D in economics and below 40 years of age as on the last date prescribed for receipt of completed applications, are eligible for these research fellowships. It was further stipulated that the preference will be given to candidates who are teaching in
an University or a college and have taken courses in environmental economics at the post-graduate level/have done teaching or research in that area. Respondent has contended that 15 applications were received by the respondent and after short listing 8 candidates were selected for interview.
4. Aggrieved by non-consideration of the application, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Banerjee, has contended that the petitioner was member of parallel committee and he has contended that petitioner was more qualified and had experience and exposure in international environmental economics, therefore, it was thought proper by the respondent that candidates, who did not have that kind of exposure in environmental economics, should be granted fellowship. The Court directed the respondent to produce the file wherein the application of the petitioner was considered. From the perusal of the file produced by Mr.Banerjee, it is seen that a note has been put on the application of the petitioner with the following noting |-
“Complete applications and forwarded through proper channel.
Good application. Has Ph.D.in Env.Eco. from USA. Has taught under graduate courses, worked at the World Bank. Does he need more training through this programme? Has applied and has been promised teaching assignment in a foreign university. He has the tools. Considered expert and has been put on course and curriculum committee. Has also been asked to contribute to books to be written by his committee for undergraduate students. He is active in international arena, frequent traveller abroad. He is on the
important national and international committee s on the subject. Since the fellowship is for limited period and a limited number of candidates another promising professional would be denied this opportunity if Dr.Gupta is picked up.
Not short listed for interview.”
5. This note has neither been signed by anyone in the organisation of the respondent NO.2, however, it has been stated by the counsel for respondent No.2 that this note was prepared by the Member Secretary of the respondent-organisation. Even if it is assumed the note was prepared by the Member Secretary, irrelevant consideration has gone into the process of rejecting the application of the petitioner as these were not the conditions stipulated in the advertisement when the respondent issued a public advertisement for grant of fellowship or any other public post, it was imperative for the respondent to have clearly indicated the stipulation they desire for the candidates for such fellowship.
6. As irrelevant consideration has gone into the mental process of rejecting the application of the petitioner, I allow the writ petition and quash the shortlisting done by the respondents. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to frame whatever guidelines/essential ingredients they would like to have in their advertisement for seeking appropriate candidates for fellowship. Rule is made absolute.
7. There will be no order as to costs.