NSD Director appointment: Delhi High Court pulls up Ministry of Culture for delay, imposes fine of ₹25,000

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up the Ministry of Culture for delaying the appointment of the Director of the National School of Drama (NSD) which fell vacant in July 2018 (Dr J. Thulaseedhara Kurup v NSD and Ors)..The Court also imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the ministry which has to be paid to the petitioner, theatre director Dr J. Thulaseedhara Kurup whose name was recommended for the post in July 2019.Justice Jyoti Singh held that the arguments of the Ministry of Culture could not satisfy the conscience of the court that it took steps to stick to the timeline. The court held that a perusal of the files and affidavits made it clear that efforts were made to delay and stall the appointment process despite the reminders sent by the appointments committee of cabinet (ACC).The Court, therefore, allowed Kurup’s petition and directed the ministry to place the recommendations of the NSD (which had Kurup’s name at the top) along with its proposal before the ACC in two weeks. It added that if Kurup’s name is approved by the ACC, he shall be appointed as Director of the NSD.In his petition, Kurup had argued that the Director’s position at the NSD had fallen vacant on 28 July, 2018. In October 2018, interviews were done for the post by a search-cum-select-committee. He learned from some sources that his name had been unanimously recommended and was at the top but there were some forces lobbying for another candidate.In November 2018, he sent a representation to the Prime Minister and even sought details under the Right to Information Act. As six months elapsed since interview, he moved the Delhi High Court which in May 2019 directed the ministry to pursue the ACC as it was informed that the matter was pending with them for approval. The Court in that order also added that it expects the ACC to take a decision within two months.However, the ministry sent the proposal to the ACC on July 11, 2019, only two days before the court’s deadline of two months was to come to an end. As Kurup enquired, he was informed that the Ministry had received several complaints against him relating to his qualifications. The Court was also informed that the ministry had recommended the name of Suresh Sharma but the ACC questioned the move as he was ranked at number 3 in the panel while Kurup was at the top.As he failed in his endeavour to be appointed Director, Kurup filed the present petition before the High Court. However, even though the petition was pending, in July 2020, the NSD issued a new notification seeking fresh applications for the post. In June 2021, prospective candidates were interviewed but the Court stayed publication of the results of these interviews or issuance of appointment letters till the petition was decided..“This Court cannot be a party to perpetuate the wrongdoings of Respondent No.2 (Ministry of Culture). The writ jurisdiction of this Court is an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction and is meant to be exercised to ensure justice and not encourage the unjust and unfair actions of the State. Thus, in my view, the issue of validity of a panel cannot be set up as a defence by Respondent No.2 to overcome its unjust actions,” Justice Singh wrote.She added the Court found no explanation from the ministry as to why it took two months to forward the proposal to the ACC but acted “with great efficiency” for suggesting Sharma’s name for the post.The bench noted that it was “crystal clear” that efforts were being made to delay and stall the process. The bench also rejected the arguments of complaints against Kurup saying that the selection committee had examined and scrutinized his qualifications.Justice Singh concluded that the entire saga showed that Kurup, despite being qualified and eligible, became a victim of circumstances and delay in the process which is still unjustified and unexplained.“Even today, before this Court, the explanation for delay borders on the usual and routine reasons, i.e. movement of files from one Department to the other, inter-departmental consultations, queries and clarifications and finally, the plea of validity of the panel. As afore-noted, the movement of the file and the communications by Respondent No.2 do not satisfy the conscience of this Court that diligent steps were taken by Respondent No.2 to ensure that timelines are adhered to not only because of the hanging sword of the DoPT O.M. but also the need to abide by the binding and enduring directions of a Court of Law,” it said..[Read Judgment]