JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. This writ petition relates to appointment of Director for the Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatric and Allied Sciences Ranchi (RINPAS). It was therefore, heard along with WP (PIL) 58 of 2004. But since on hearing the matter in detail, we felt that the public interest litigation should be disposed off separately after a local inspection, we have rendered a separate judgment therein on 21.5.2004. A separate judgment is being rendered in this writ petition on the question projected in this writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was an applicant for the post of Director of RINPAS based on Annexure 4 advertisement. The advertisement inviting applications provided that the applicant must be having thorough understanding and wide experience in the field of Psychiatry and the related areas. He should also posses strong administrative capability. He must possess a recognized Post Graduate medical qualification and other academic qualifications from a recognized institution and must have a minimum teaching experience of ten years as Professor/Associate Professor in a department. Preference was to be given to those who had been Heads of the Departments. An ideal candidate was to be in the age group of 45 to 50 years as on 30.6.2003. However, for a especially qualified and experienced candidate, the age limit was liable to be relaxed.
3. As disclosed from the facts pleaded, there were four applications in response to the above notification. One of the applicants was apparently not qualified. The screening committee seems to have decided to issue invitations to the writ petitioner, one Dr. Khess and respondent No. 5 for being interviewed. According to the learned Advocate General, at that stage, the question of qualification had not been decided finally and it was subject to the production of necessary certificates by the candidate at the interview to back up his qualification. According to the Institute and the State Government, the interview was fixed for 6.11.2003 and a communication to the three candidates were sent out on 16.10.2003. According to RINPAS and the State Government, Dr. Khess and the writ petitioner did not appear for the interview. Only respondent No. 5 appeared for the interview. Respondent No. 5 was found qualified and hence he was selected and appointed as Director of RINPAS.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that no communication was sent to him about the interview, fixed on 6.11.2003 and consequently he was deprived of an opportunity to appear at the interview. The second contention was that respondent No. 5 had not fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in Annexure-4 notification, since respondent No. 5 did not have the teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor or a Reader in a Medical College. The State and RINPAS met this plea by submitting that the petitioner and Dr. Khess were informed of the interview by the letter sent on 16.10.2003 and the petitioner failed to appear at the interview. The State cannot be faulted for proceeding with the selection and the appointment of respondent No. 5 especially since Dr. Khess also did not respond to the notice inviting him to attend the interview. In view of this controversy, we directed the State to make available to us the relevant files. Pursuant to or direction, the relevant files were produced. One of them purports to be an Issue Register and it indicates that letters to the petitioner, Dr. Khess, respondent No. 5 and one Dr. Tushar Kanti Ganguly were dispatched in relation to the selection to the post of Director of RINPAS. But the Register does not show how the communication was sent, whether through post or otherwise, and to that extent, it is equivocal. The other file produced shows the proceeding of the selection committee held on 6.7.2003 in the official chamber of the Secretary, Health and Medical Education and Family Welfare, Jharkhand. It shows that six candidates had applied for the post of Director. The screening committee had short listed and found three candidates fit to be called for interview, namely the writ petitioner, Dr. Khess and Dr. P.K. Chakraborty, respondent No. 5. The proceeding shows that according to this list, notices were issued to Dr. D. Minj, Dr. Khess and Dr. P.K. Chakraborty to appear for the interview on 6.11.2003. It further records that only Dr. P.K. Chakraborty reported for the interview. The Selection Committee waited for a reasonable time for the other candidates to come and report for the interview, but no other candidate reported for interview. It further shows that Dr. Chakraborty was interviewed and even thereafter, the interview committee waited for some more time for the other two to appear and still they did not report. The committee ultimately adjudged respondent No. 5 fit for the post of Director, RINPAS in view of what it called his excellent professional record and vast experience. The committee also recommended relaxation of age to respondent No. 5 and recommended that he be continued until he attained the age of 65 years.
5. Learned Advocate General also raised a contention that the writ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, since he was not a Professor/Associate Professor or Reader with a minimum teaching experience of ten years, of which at least five years should be as a professor in a department and hence the petitioner cannot complain about his non-selection. The file shows the professional experience of the writ petitioner. On going through that file, it appears to be possible to say that the writ petitioner did not possess the qualification of being a Professor/Associate Professor/Reader for a period of ten years in any medical college or Institute, out of which at least five years had been spent as Professor in a Department. Though there can be some doubt about the question whether the communication calling upon the writ petitioner was despatched to him to his correct address and the accepted mode, it is also not possible to come to a difinite conclusion that no such communication was sent to the writ petitioner in this context, we may also notice that Dr. Khess, who was the other person to whom notice was allegedly sent calling upon him to attend the interview, has not come forward with a complaint that he received no communication for the interview allegedly fixed. Of Course, the petitioner has persistently stated that the communication was not received by him. But we have also to take note of the argument of the learned Advocate General that the petitioner did not have the necessary qualification for holding the post and that was the reason why he did not choose to attend the interview. It is true that in such a situation, it is really for the State and the Institution to satisfy us that the petitioner was, in fact, called for the interview by dispatch of a communication to him in that behalf. But the case of the petitioner in this regard has also to be noticed. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, he asserted that without giving an opportunity to the other eligible persons, respondent No. 5 was appointed. He also pleaded that he made a representation on 6.12.2003 informing the authorities that as per his information, he was also eligible for being called for interview along with two others, but purposely he was not given an interview letter to participate in the interview. He further pleaded that the respondents concerned should have given an adequate and equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates for attending the interview. This is controverted in the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was called for interview vide letter No. 154 (3), dated 16.10.2003 of the Department of Health. This is, to some extent, supported by the Issue Register made available for our perusal. Though, as we have noticed, there is no specification therein as to the mode of communication, on the materials available, it does not appear to us to be established that the writ petitioner was not called for the interview, as he had pleaded. The circumstances suggest that it could be a case where the writ petitioner failed to attend the interview, perhaps realizing that he did not have the full qualification as set out in the notice inviting applications.
6. In any event, since we are not satisfied that the writ petitioner has made out a case for interference by us on that score, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. We are also not satisfied that respondent No. 5 did not have the requisite qualification for being appointed a Director of the Institute. No doubt, his age has been relaxed as recommended by the selection committee, but that cannot be said to be inconsistent with the notice calling for applications which itself provided for relaxation in age. No interference on that ground also seems to be warranted. Thus, on the whole, we are not satisfied that adequate ground has been made out for
our interference with the appointment of the Director of the Institute. We, are, therefore, satisfied that no interference is called for in this writ petition. We dismiss this writ petition.