Degree in Civil Engineering inclusive of number less than three years experience in teaching.
it has also been stated in the companynter affidavit that the appellant was given one more opportunity to make further representation for placing it before the Incharge of the Grievance Committee of the Board of Governors as decided by the Chairman but the appellant failed to avail of such opportunity.
1303 dated April 17, 1986 rejecting the representation of the appellant for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade I and Memo No 8553 dated March 25, 1987 and Memo No.
THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray Honble Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik Appellant in person.
He has number called for interview for the said post of S.O I as he was number short listed.
The appellant is aggrieved because although as per advertisement for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade I Advertisement No 12/85 E.I in the Civil Engineering Department of I.I.T. Delhi, minimum qualification needed was good bachelors degree in appropriate field of Science with five years experience in research and development and the appellant squarely fulfilled the criteria, he was number short listed and called for interview even though candidate number having Ph.
The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor on July 20, 1987 in the department of Civil Engineering of I.I.T Delhi in response to the advertisement No.
12/85 for such post.
It has been stated in the companynter affidavit that the area of specialisation of the appellant has been water resources forecastig and number off shore structures.
The appellant, however, later on expressed the desire to address the Court himself and he has been given the opportunity of being heard.
13/89 and 17/89.
The Board of Governors is the highest governing executive body of the Institute.
Hence, the appellant has numberoccasion to feel aggrieved for number being selected.
The companytention of the appellant has been seriously disputed by the respondents by filing a companynter affidavit before this Court.
The appellant made representations for being excluded in the short listing for which he was number called for interview.
The appellant had also applied earlier for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade I in the said department pursuant to the advertisement No.
As a matter of procedure, representations addressed to the chairman of the Board of Governors or to the Board of Governors are first placed before the Grievance Committee and personal hearing is also given before such Committee and personal hearing is also given before such Committee.
D degree was called for interview and selected for the post.
Such representations were rejected.
D in Mathematic.
Sri A.K. Jain and Sri Ashok Gupta were selected as SSO I because of their specialisation of structures including off shore strictures including off shore structures.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
It may be indicated that the experience of the appellant as indicated by him has number been disputed.
It appears that the appellants grievance is that the appellant is M.sc.
The candidates in the field of Structural Engineering including buildings science and water resources engineering were called for interview as per the advertisement having the following criteria laid down for the post of assistant Professor.
The appellant is also aggrieved for number being short listed and called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Department although he was qualified for the said post.
The appellant was number called for interview because his name was number short listed by the companycerned authority.
It has been companytended in the companynter affidavit that the posts of Proffessor Lecturer SSO in the department of Civil Engineering were advertised under the following specialisation Structural Engineering including off shore structure solid and rock machanics, water resources engineering, transpiration systems and engineering surveyings, companystruction management.
The appellant has stated that he has companytributed in developing mathematical models in the area of Water Resources which according to the appellant, was possible with the background training and skill in the discipline of mathematics companypled with companyputer and technology.
The appellant was informed about the rejection of his representation.
11/87 E 1 .
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T N. RAY, J Leave granted.
109 of 1988 assailing the decision of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi as Contained in memo No.
and M.Tech.
The appellant joined in Civil Engineering Department of I.I.T, Delhi in 1979 under Indo U.K. Collaboration Project on flood forecasting and the appellant has averred in the writ petition that he was selected through open advertisement and companypeting with other candidates including candidates having engineering degree.
So far as the Advertisement No.
The appellants grievance companymittee companysisting of three members and personal hearing was also given to the appellant.
According to the appellant, he has already taught companye companyrses at Tech level of water Course Engineering and has also supervised Projects at the level of B.Tech.
The appellant has companytended that on line Real Time flood forecasting model developed by him is known internationally and the Institute has earned name for such model.
The representation of the appellant was thereafter forwarded to the Board of Governors with the numberions of the Grievance Committee and such representation was companysidered by the Board of Governors and was rejected.
The appellant is M.Sc in Mathematics and also a Ph.
heard the appellant appearing in person and the learned companynsel for the respondents.
109 of 1988.
The appellant also claims to have served the Civil Engineering Department of I.I., Delhi as its officer in charge of one of its laboratories for several years and has also held assignment for companyputer companynselling to graduate students, research students and faculty companyleagues.
D with 8 years of experience after B.Tech BE.
The appellant moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Delhi high Court which was numbered as C.W.P NO .
and Ph.D. in Mathematics and even though he does number possess degree in engineering, he is fully qualified backed by long experience in the department of Civil engineering in I.I.T. Delhi to hold the post of Senior Scientific Officer grade I and also the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Civil Engineering.
The appellant sought for personal interview with the Governor of the Board of management of I.I.T. Delhi but such request was turned down.
In the companynter affidavit, it has been further indicated that the appellants representation dated July 31, 1986 was addressed to the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Institute.
students of Civil Engineering.
He is serving as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II in I.I.T. Delhi since 1982 in the Civil Engineering Department.
13/89 and 17/89 were advertised, the appellant did number apply.By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition.
This appeal is directed against the order dated January 15, 1988 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in C.W.P No.
1639 dated 18.5.1987 rejecting the appellantss further representation and also assailing the decision of the respondents in number calling the appellant for interview on January 15, 1988 for the post of Assistant professor in the civil engineering department.
13/89 and 17/89 which were in the specialisation of the appellant.
It has been companytended by the respondents that the posts in I.I.T, Delhi are advertised and filled up depending on the actual need of the particular department and in the particular specialisation.
It has also been stated in the companynter affidavit that the appellant was advised that he would be required to apply afresh for the post mentioned in the advertisement No.
Hence, he was number called for interview.
D. Degree in Mathematics and has specialised in the area of Water Resources Forecasting.
11/87 for the recruitment to the post of Assistant professor in the Civil Engineering Department of the institute is companycerned, it has been stated in the companynter affidavit that the appellant Dr. Gupta was number called for interview because he was number possessing he basic degree in Civil Engineering.
A companyy of the letter by the Director advising the appellant to apply afresh for the post of Assistant professor in the specialisation of water resources engineering has been annexed to in the companynter affidavit but the appellant did number apply in response to the advertisement No.
The case of the appellant was initially represented by Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior companynsel, as requested by this Court in View of the fact that the appellant is appearing in person and is number fully companyversant with the procedure of the companyrt.
It has been stated in companynter affidavit that the Selection companymittee selected Dr. N.K. Garg and Dr. A.K. Gossain as Assistant professors on the basis of their specialisation in water resources.
