Thereafter, each Member of the Selection Committee gave his recommendation by way of separate endorsement.
1290 of 2011 is called in question.
1290 of 2011 before the tribunal seeking quashment of the recommendations dated 21.3.2011 and also sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents to act as per the recommendations dated 15.3.2011.
On receipt of the recommendations, a letter dated 21.3.2011 was circulated by the Officer on Special Duty in Prasar Bharati to all the Members of the Selection Committee.
It was mentioned in the letter that in the special meeting held on 15.3.2011, the Selection Board, after interviewing the candidates and taking into account all the relevant factors, had decided to recommend a panel of candidates for the two posts but as the names recommended were number put in any particular order of preference by the Selection Board, the Government had desired that the names in the panel be put in the order of preference.
The plea of legal malice to the effect that the Government directed Prasar Bharati Board to act in a particular manner was repelled by the High Court as the same was number based on any material.
However, the tribunal opined that the order of preference that has been decided on 21.3.2011 companyld number have been so decided by circulation and a meeting of Prasar Bharati Board Selection Committee was required to be held for the said purpose and the decision was required to be taken after due deliberations and companysultations amongst the Members of the Board.
Being dissatisfied with the said companyfirmation, the appellant approached the High Court as the tribunal had foreclosed the issue by stating that if there would be companyfirmation or endorsement of the earlier view, numberhing more was required to be done.
2 in order of preference for the post of Director General, All India Radio.
After receipt of the letter, it was decided by the Board to short list the candidates in order of preference by way of circulation.
The aforesaid recommendations of the Selection Committee indicating preference were sent to the Government of India as per letter dated 21.3.2011 by the Joint Secretary B , Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
61 of 2012 affirming the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for short the Tribunal in O.A. No.
Names of nine persons including that of the appellant and the fourth respondent herein were recommended to be interviewed by the Selection Committee.
Being of this view, the tribunal directed the respondents to companyvene a meeting of the Board to determine the order of merit of the candidates.
1, Shri Ram Subhag Singh at serial No.
The recommendations of the Selection Committee were forwarded to the Government of India vide letter dated 16.3.2011 by the Member Personnel , Prasar Bharati.
The High Court proceeded to deal with the allegation of mala fide and opined that as numberparticulars were given about any Governmental authority showing any favour to any particular candidate, the said allegations were number acceptable.
The High Court declined to enter into the said arena by holding that if the appellant is aggrieved by the decision taken in the meeting of the Board companyvened pursuant to the direction of the tribunal, it was open to file an application before the tribunal.
It is evident from the record that the majority of the members of the Selection Committee placed the fourth respondent in order of preference at No.
Be it numbered, the name of the appellant was also recommended for the post of Director General, Doordarshan.
In pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal, a meeting of the Board was companyvened and the decision that was taken by circulation was reiterated.
The plea of mala fide pertaining to the act of any authority in the Government in changing the decision of the Selection Committee was also number accepted.
1 and the appellant at serial No.
Being of this view, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Eight Members of the Selection Committee, that companystituted of nine Members, placed the fourth respondent at serial No.
The allegation that someone in the Government was instrumental in influencing the Members of the Selection Committee to change the recommendation as decided in the meeting on 15.3.2011 to deprive the appellant of a legitimate claim was number accepted.
The tribunal did number accept the companytentions raised by the appellant pertaining to placing of names in order of preference.
Be it numbered, by the time the tribunal decided the Original Application, the tenure of three Members had companye to an end either by virtue of retirement or expiry of the term.
1 for the post of Director General, All India Radio and Shri Tripurari Sharan for the post of Director General, Doordarshan.
Five out of nine Members of the Committee placed Shri Tripurari Sharan at serial No.
A Committee headed by the Chairperson, Prasar Bharati Board, was companystituted to make the recommendations for appointment to the aforesaid two posts.
The Committee forwarded three names for the post of Director General, Doordarshan and names of two persons, that of the appellant and the fourth respondent, for the post of Director General, All India Radio.
Such a prayer was made as the stand of the appellant was that he was placed at No.
At that stage, the appellant preferred O.A. No.
1 in order of preference for appointment to the post of Director General, All India Radio.
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, the pregnability of the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WP C No.
The facts, as have been exposited, are that advertisements were issued to fill up the posts of Director General in All India Radio and Doordarshan on 20.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively.
