JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the Order dated 24th September 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge which dismissed the review application filed by the appellant on the basis that the review application was abuse of process of the court. In order to understand the sequence of events leading to such a review petition it is necessary to set out a few facts. The writ petition of the petitioner was filed challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Trade Information Officer ((Foreign Office) at New York. The petitioner’s case was that the Respondent No. 2 was selected by ignoring the seniority, merit, qualification and suitability of the appellant for the said post. It was also contended that the selection of respondent No. 2 was also against the existing approved service bye-laws / recruitment rules. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1929/2002. On 23rd May 2002, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge perused the record of the Selection Committee and found that the petitioner’s case was considered along with the case of the respondent No. 2 and on the basis of comparative merit, the respondent No. 2 Mr. D.K. Nangia was selected. The Selection Committee was found to have consisted of Executive Director, The Senior General Managers, The Director, Ministry of Commerce and External Export, who was Deputy Director (General) Confederation of Indian Industry and Head of the Department (Admn.) of Respondent No. 1.
2. The learned Single Judge perused the comparative marks and found that the respondent No. 2 Mr. D. K. Nangia secured the highest marks and the petitioner was at number four in the ranking of merit. The learned Single Judge also found that the rules relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable because it was in respect of the Development Authority, which was no longer in existence having merged with ITPO along with the Trade Fair Authority of India in the year 1992. The learned Single Judge accordingly held that (a) the Selection Committee was a high powered Committee of representative character and its composition could not have been challenged and the method of interview was a well considered method as though fit by the respondent No. 1; (b) The consideration was in accordance with the guidelines then in force and not arbitrary.
3. In view of the above conclusion, the learned Single Judge was of the view that it was not for this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.
4. We are satisfied that on merits there is no basis for the challenge to the said selection as it was done by a duly appointed Selection Committee and this Court cannot substitute under Article 226 of the Constitution its evaluation in place of the evaluation by the Selection Committee unless it is perverse. The learned Single Judge also found that there was no allegation of malafides. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal preferred by the appellant which deserves to be dismissed.
5. We may note that this Letters Patent Appeal also had a chequered history as is demonstrated from the following sequence of events:
(a) Vide Order dated 23rd May 2002 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition No. 1929/2002 filed by the petitioner.
(b) On 17th July 2002, following order by the Division Bench of this Court was passed:
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the appellant wishes to file a review petition against the impugned order since the learned Single Judge did not consider the pleas of the appellant that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and wrongly recorded that there was no challenge to the composition of the Committee. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the composition of the Committee was challenged as being contrary to the Recruitment Rules.
ANIL DEV SINGH, J.
July 17, 2002 MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
(c) On 28th August 2002, following order was passed by the learned Single Judge:
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
O R D E R
28.8.2002
CM 9221/2002
After some hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the application.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
August 28, 2002 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
(d) This Order was carried in the appeal and the following Order was passed by the Division Bench:
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE USHA MEHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
O R D E R
15.05.2003
The appeal was withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for filing review application. Appellant, who is appearing in person says that his counsel even withdrew the review application without his consent. Let the application approach the learned Single Judge, if he is so advised, for filing review application.
The application is dismissed.
dusty.
USHA MEHRA, J
MAY 15, 2003 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
(e) Consequently, the impugned Order dated 24th September 2002 leading to the present appeal was passed and reads as under:
RA 9207/2003
The writ petition was decided by an Order dated 23.05.2002. A review application was filed bearing CM No. 2991/2002, which was heard. However, at the stage when the Order was to be dictated for dismissal of the review application, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the application and the application was dismissed as withdrawn.
Now, the present application has, one again, been filed for review in person.
In my considered view, this application is an abuse of the process of the Court and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi Level Service Authority within 3 weeks.
CM 9028/2003
Dismissed.
September 24, 2003 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
6. In our view, the above sequence of the orders of this Court shows that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that the Order of 15th May 2003 directed the learned Single Judge to consider the review application. It merely recorded the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that he could approach the learned Single Judge if so advised for review petition. This does not amount to any direction to the learned Single Judge to hear the review on merits. Consequently, on merits of the writ petition or on the ground of reasons raised in this appeal relating to the maintainability of the review petition there is no merit in the present appeal.
7. We may also note that the tenure of Mr. D. K. Nangia, who was selected for the said post, is already over and the new incumbent is already in place. Even on this account, the appeal has become entirely academic and infructuous.
8. The appeal is therefore dismissed.