New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Shubhransu Shekhar Acharya as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (NSIDC).
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that PIL in service matters is not maintainable and it is not inclined to consider this petition.
"In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue raised in the present petition " The bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said in an order passed on June 1.
The petitioner, Saddam Ali, attacked Acharya's appointment claiming that it was done in violation of the advertisement issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises on July 11, 2023 as he had a "minimum period" of two years of service. Was not there. Left.
He said that the reasons for relaxation in the criteria prescribed in Clause 5 of Annexure-1 of the advertisement have not been disclosed by the authorities and the decision to appoint Acharya without looking into the relevant material is wrong on the basis of official arbitrariness.
Rejecting the arguments, the court said that the PIL is not maintainable and only non-appointed persons can question the validity of the appointment or extension process.
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that PIL in service matters is not maintainable and it is not inclined to consider this petition.
"In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue raised in the present petition " The bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said in an order passed on June 1.
The petitioner, Saddam Ali, attacked Acharya's appointment claiming that it was done in violation of the advertisement issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises on July 11, 2023 as he had a "minimum period" of two years of service. Was not there. Left.
He said that the reasons for relaxation in the criteria prescribed in Clause 5 of Annexure-1 of the advertisement have not been disclosed by the authorities and the decision to appoint Acharya without looking into the relevant material is wrong on the basis of official arbitrariness.
Rejecting the arguments, the court said that the PIL is not maintainable and only non-appointed persons can question the validity of the appointment or extension process.
