ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The short point which is to be decided in this case is as to whether the action of Respondent No.1 in filling up the post of General Manager by resorting composite method was proper or whether the post should have been filled up on deputation basis as contended by the petitioner. The other related point to be decided is as to whether Respondent No.4 who has been appointed to this post was eligible for such appointment.
2. The facts are largely undisputed and may be stated in brief:
3. Respondent No.1, namely, National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation is Government of India Undertaking and “another authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India . It issued Circular No./NBCFDC/GM/RECTT /P&A /98 /5405 dated January 7,1998 to various Corporations informing that the Corporation was looking for a dynamic personnel to the post of General Manager (P & A) in the scale of Rs.8250-300-10050 (IDA) and the post was required to be filled on deputation/absorption basis. Request was made that names of suitable candidates along with their complete bio-data be sent to Managing Director of respondent No.1 within 20 days of receipt of this circular letter Petitioner who
is working as Senior Manager (Administration) in National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Finance Corporation, New Delhi applied for the said post through proper channel. On 26.2.98 petitioner received a call letter for interview intimating that interview would be held on 27.2.98. He was interviewed along with respondent No.4 and ultimately respondent No.4 was selected for the post and was given the appointment to the post of General Manager (P&A). It may be mentioned that Respondent No.4 was working as Manager with respondent No.1.
4. This writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of General Manager (P&A) on the ground that as per circular dated 7.1.98 the post could be filled only on deputation basis and petitioner being the internal candidate, his appointment to the post was contrary to circular dated 7.1.98 as the appointment of the respondent No.4 is by way of promotion which method could not be adopted as per Circular dated 7.1.98 . It was further submitted that respondent No.4 in any case was not eligible for the post of General Manager(P&A) as he was working as Manager which was two steps below the post of General Manager, inasmuch as there was another post of Senior Manager in between Manager and General Manager.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is submitted that as per the Recruitment Rules, the post could be filled up by adopting composite method of recruitment i.e. promotion/transfer/deputation/direct method. The relevant rule reads as under:
“MODE OF RECRUITMENT, AGE LIMIT AND QUALIFICATION ETC.
Mode of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating to each post shall be as specified in the Schedules annexed to these rules.
In cases where field of promotion consists of only one post, the composite method of recruitment, i.e. Promotion/Transfer/
Deputation/Direct will be followed. The eligible departmental officer(s) would be considered along with outsiders”
6. It is further submitted that in the present case, the recruitment under challenge was to the single post of G.M.(P&A). As such, in accordance with the Rule extracted hereinabove, a composite mode of selection was adopted, considering the petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 As Respondent No.4 was fully qualified and experienced for the post and was found by the Selection Committee to have performed best in the interview, his name alone was recommended for selection. There is nothing illegal in the entire exercise, and the petition is apparently merely an attempt by the unsuccessful petitioner to stymie the appointment of Respondent No.4. To do so, the petition relies on a Rule which was allegedly-but was never actuallyadopted by the Respondent Corporation, and omits to make any mention of the Rules that were actually adopted by the Respondent-Corporation in its 1st Board Meeting and continue to apply to it.
7. The counter-affidavit further clarifies that the Respondent No.4 was eligible for appointment/promotion to the post of General Manager as in the respondent-corporation there is no post of Senior Manager at all and after the post of Manager, a person is entitled to be promoted as General Manager and in fact post of Manager is a feeder post of consideration to the post of General Manager. In support of this submission, extracts of the Minutes of 1st Board Meeting of respondent-corporation held on 13.2.92 is annexed as Annexure-R-1 as per which there is no post of Senior Manager.
8. I may state at this stage that in the writ petition the petitioner had averred that the respondent-corporation had framed Recruitment Rules for the post of General Manager in its 33rd Board Meeting and the post is not filled as per these Rules and further that these Rules do not contemplate composite method to be followed. It is explained in the counter-affidavit that the Rules which are referred to by the petitioner were only proposed which never came into effect. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner conceded this aspect and proceeded with the case on the basis of the Recruitment Rules adopted by the Respondent-Corporation as per which composite method of Recruitment is to be followed where field of promotion consist only of one post. However, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since in this case the respondents had issued Circular letter dated 7.1.98 as per which the respondent-corporation was to fill up the post only on the basis of deputation, the respondent-corporation could not go against this circular and adopt composite method. In support of his submission, petitioner counsel had cited the judgment in the case of K.Madhavan and Another Vs. Union of India and others .
9. No doubt circular letter dated 7.1.98 gives an impression as if the post is required to be filled up on deputation/absorption basis. However,it has to be borne in mind that this circular was sent to various other corporations. The purpose was to enable these corporations to send the names of suitable candidates who wanted to be considered for the post on deputation basis. With this idea in mind perhaps, it was not specified that the provision of Rule was not cited as per which composite method of selection was to be followed and as these corporations to whom the circular was addressed were concerned only with the sending of the names on deputation basis. The circular mentions about this method and, therefore, it can be said at the most that the circular is not properly worded. However, the petitioner cannot take advantage if the Circular dated 7.1.98 is not happily worded. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner as he has been considered for the post of General Manager in any case. Moreover, the circular cannot go against the Rules and when the Rules prescribed for composite method, respondent-corporation was bound to follow the Rules. Had the consideration be limited to the persons form outside who wanted to come on deputation basis, by ignoring departmental candidates who were otherwise eligible for promotion like respondent No.4 in the instant case, it would have violated the mandatory provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules . As per the Rules, departmental candidates are eligible for consideration. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, effect of that would be to exclude such persons like respondent No.4 from consideration although eligible under the Rules. Respondent No.1, obviously, could not do so. Rather exclusion of Respondent No.4, otherwise eligible would have given legitimate cause of grievance to respondent No.4 by contending that he could not have been ignored from such consideration. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the petitioner that once Circular dated 7.1.98 is issued, the respondents should still act contrary to Recruitment rules . It may be mentioned but for the fact that there is only one post, it would not have been filled up on deputation basis at all and the consideration could have been confined to departmental candidates by filling up of the post on promotion basis. However, in case where there is one post the composite method is suggested so that apart from departmental candidates the outsiders are also considered who may apply on deputation basis or who are outside candidates and apply under direct recruitment basis. The petitioner is ignoring one significant aspect. Normally the departmental candidates are to be considered for promotion. However, when there is one post, area of consideration is widened by considering persons on deputation as well as direct recruitment as for one post quota for promotees and direct recruits cannot be prescribed. It is for, this reason that composite method is followed and this composite method has enabled consideration of persons like petitioner for the post who wanted to be appointed on deputation basis . It cannot have the effect of excluding departmental candidates.
10. For these reasons the judgment cited by the petitioner has no application . The case of K. Madhavan and another Vs. Union of India and others (Supra) dealt with the case where appointment was to be made by transfer on deputation . In fact that was a case where there were many posts of Superintendent of Police and different quota was prescribed for promotion as well as transfer/deputation. It was not a case of one post where composite method of appointment was to be followed.
11. I do not agree with the submissions of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was not eligible for promotion in view of clarification given in the counter-affidavit to the effect that there is no post of Senior Manager and in fact Manager is a feeder post for General Manager. The present petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit. Rule is discharged. Writ petition stands dismissed.
No orders as to costs.