The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal here has directed the Officer on Special Duty, Prasar Bharati, to file an affidavit explaining the sequence of events from March 21 on the revised recommendations of the selection committee for the posts of Director-Generals of All India Radio/Doordarshan.

The Bench, comprising Chairman Justice V.K. Bali and Vice-Chairman L.K. Joshi, gave this interim direction on G. Jayalal's application that challenged the revised recommendations and the subsequent order of March 30 by which L.D. Mandloi was given current charge as DG of AIR in addition to his charge as DG of Doordarshan.

According to the applicant, the selection committee met on March 15 and selected three persons for the post of DG of Doordarshan in the order of merit, viz, Mr. Mandloi, Tripurari Sharan and Ram Subhag Singh. For the post of DG, AIR, the names of Mr. Jayalal (applicant) and Mr. Mandloi were recommended in the order of merit.

However, even before the panel of names could be sent to the government for appointment, the recommendations were arbitrarily revised on March 21. For the AIR DG post, Mr. Mandloi was selected as the first name and the applicant was shown in the second rank in the order of merit.

Order of preference

However, on behalf of the Centre and other respondents it was submitted that the March 21 communication itself suggested that the government had only desired from the Prasar Bharati Board that the names in the panels of short-listed candidates be put in order of preference, and the Board after carefully considering the matter decided by circulation, to put the names in the panels of short-listed candidates in the following order of preference, viz, for the post of DG, AIR —Mr. Mandloi and Mr. Jayalal; for DG of Doordarshan Mr. Sharan, Mr. Singh and Mr. Mandloi.

It was submitted that this was the decision taken by the Chairman of the Board and circulated to all the members separately, who expressed their independent view.

However, the Bench, in its order, noted that according to the applicant, the decision already taken by the government was submitted to the members of the Board.

The Bench said that in the context of the controversy, “we are of the view that the matter would need clarification by the respondent, Prasar Bharati. We at this stage, without commenting anything more, would direct Dhiranjan Malvey, OSD, Prasar Bharati, to file an affidavit explaining his March 21 letter and the sequence of events that took place thereafter.”

The Bench wanted to know from the OSD: “Was the decision mentioned the letter, the one taken by the government, which was conveyed by the OSD to the members of the Board, or that the Chairman had taken a decision and required it to be circulated to have opinion of all the Members?”

The Bench directed that the affidavit be filed by July 6, next date of hearing.

|||||| Thank you for your interest.||||||