Doordarshan

service matter= 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.= Section 4 of the Act deals with appointment of Chairman and other Members. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 read thus: – “4. Appointment of Chairman and other Members. – (1) The Chairman and the other Members, except the ex officio Members, the nominated Member and the elected Members shall be appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a committee consisting of- (a) the Chairman of the Council of States, who shall be the Chairman of the Committee; (b) the Chairman of the Press Council of India established under section 4 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (37 of 1978); and (c) one nominee of the President of India. (2) No appointment of Member shall be invalidated merely by reason of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the committee appointed under sub-section (1).” 18. Regulation 5 of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Director General (Akashvani) and Director General (Doordarshan) (Recruitment) Regulations, 2001 reads as follows: – “5. Appointing Authority : The appointment to the post specified in column 1 of the Schedule shall be made by the Corporation, after consultation with the Recruitment Board established under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act.”= By efflux of time, some of the Members of the Board were substituted and different Members were inducted. The tribunal thought it appropriate to remit the matter to the Board to reconsider the matter after due deliberation. Keeping in view the minutes of the meeting, it is manifest that the Board has gone through the whole deliberations by the recommending authority, as we find from the records, and expressed the view. Thus, it was not necessary to hold a further interview to find out the preference as the minutes were absolutely clear as day that no preference was given. Therefore, we do not find any flaw in the three Members participating in the short-listing of the names and giving preference. That apart, the majority of the earlier Members were there and they had given preference in favour of the fourth respondent and, therefore, factually, it would not have made any difference.

Page 1     Rep ortable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4665 OF 2013 G. Jayalal …Appellant Versus Union of India and others …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, the pregnability of the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the High … Continue reading →