Major Setback To PESB As Madras High Court Sets Aside The PESB Shortlist For Post Of CMD- TCL

Mere procedure should not overweigh the essential qualification possessed by the petitioner to participate in the selection rules Madras High Court. www.indianpsu.com has already published the interim order of the Madras High Court of staying the operation of candidates shortlisted for the post of CMD-TCL one of the 7 Ordnance Factories DPSU.

READ ALSO : https://indianpsu.com/defence-psu-tcl-cmd-selection-stayed-by-madras-high-court/

The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet was already critical of non-adherence of its guidelines by the Ministries/Departments and Public Enterprises Selection Board. In this regard the secretariat of the appointments committee of the Cabinet in its Office Memorandum 17/08/2024 has pointed out more than 12 areas where the standard criteria as per the guidelines are not followed by the departments and PESB itself. One of the deviation mentioned in the OM is about exclusion of the prescribed eligible categories. In the case of selection of CMD for TCL the eligible candidate B S Reddy’s name was not included in the shortlist published by PESB.

This was challenged by B S Reddy the present General Manager of Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi under TCL. B S Reddy is one of the senior IOFS officer. Senior Advocate Ravi Kumar Paul appeared for B S Reddy in the Madras High Court and argued the case before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh. On Behalf of the Government and PESB ASG A.R.L. Sundaresan argued the case.

After hearing both sides Justice N. Anand Venkatesh set aside the PESB order dated 14/08/2024 which shortlisted 12 persons excluding B S Reddy for consideration to the post of CMD of TCL. The High Court has further directed to include the name of B S Reddy in the list of shortlisted candidates and proceed further with the process of selection to the post of Chairman and Managing Director in conformity with the guidelines and in accordance with law. The High Court further made the following observations in the Judgement dated 30/09/2024.

“The second respondent must look for the best candidate to be selected to the post of Chairman & Managing Director. Hence, considering the experience and achievements of the petitioner should not be rejected on a technical ground, which does not get into the root of the case touching upon the essential qualification. The materials placed before this court would show that the petitioner possesses all the qualification that are required as per the Notification. Hence, the form, under which it was presented, should not deprive the petitioner from participating in the selection. In other words, a mere procedure should not over weigh the essential qualification possessed by the petitioner to participate in the selection. The non filling up of the application in the format that was expected should not prove fatal to the extent of depriving the petitioner even to participate in the selection.”