HC stays order quashing PEC Director’s appointment

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 30

Less than a fortnight after the appointment of Prof MK Arora as Punjab Engineering College Director was quashed by a Single Judge, a Division Bench headed by Justice Mahesh Grover today ordered a stay on it.

The quashing orders were passed soon after the High Court was told that “wide publication” was not made for filling the Director’s post. Rather, only limited IIT institutions were informed. The High Court had observed: “In the absence of wide notification to fill the post, the process of selection was proceeded”.  

The order by the Single Judge came on a petition filed by Prof Pradeep Kumar Garg of the IIT, Roorkee, through counsel Rohit Seth. Professor Garg claimed that the Secretary, Technical Education, issued an advertisement dated December  11, 2012, to fill the Director’s post. In response, the petitioner submitted his application through proper channel.

Subsequently, he was called for an interaction on March  12, 2013, in the room of the Adviser to the UT Administrator. In all, seven candidates of the nine shortlisted attended the interaction.

Based upon a complaint, a second interaction of the same committee was held on May 2, 2013, at the UT Guest House in New Delhi, in which Dr RS Mishra and two more candidates — Dr Manoj Arora and Dr SM Ishtiaque — were called.

The meeting was not brought to the petitioner’s notice, nor was he called for the interaction while his name had already appeared as one of the front runners in two national newspapers.

After he came to know about the second interaction, he submitted a representation on May 22, 2013, to the Administrator, the appointing authority.     

Finding no response, he submitted another representation to the PMO. However, later it was reported in Chandigarh Tribune dated May  31, 2013, that Dr MK Arora, an alumnus of PEC, had been selected as the Director.

He was appointed on the basis of the second interaction, which took place behind his back in New Delhi. The petitioner added that he had taught Professor Arora in the 80s during his MTech and he was much junior to him in terms of the length of service and experience.

The Single Bench, on a previous date of hearing, had directed counsel for the UT Administration to give reasons for not giving wide publication “with reference  to the fact that the Director’s post shall be filled by an eminent person from the field of technical education and why it was restricted to only various IIT institutions in the country”. 

He was also asked to specify whether the Director’s post was “public”. He was also directed to specify the powers and functions of the committee and the method of assessing a candidate’s performance in the two interactions.