Judgment of the above noted case bearing Appeal (civil) No. 7116 of 2010 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24537 of 2010 was delivered by the bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. H. S. Bedi J. And Mr. J. M. Panchal J. on August 27, 2010.
The significant question in law involved in the case was whether Appointment Committee of Cabinet have the exclusive jurisdiction to assess the suitability of a candidate and the court could not interfere?
The appeal in question was filed by way of special leave petition by the Union of India and the State Trading Corporation impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 18th May 2009 whereby the judgment of the Single Judge dated 9th January 2009 has been set aside and a direction has been issued that the case of the respondent for appointment as Director Marketing in the State Trading Corporation be reconsidered in the manner indicated therein.
The respondent Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar joined the services of the State Trading Corporation in April 2001 as Executive Secretary to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation and was on the relevant date working as Chief General Manager. A post of Director (Marketing) having fallen vacant, the respondent applied for the post on the 27th December 2005. Interviews were held on 4th March 2006 by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB for short) and two candidates were shortlisted, the respondent being at serial No.1, and one Neeraj Mishra at serial No.2 in order of preference. Consequent to the selection, the Central Vigilance Commissioner also issued a clearance for the respondent on or around 26th March 2006 and the Department of Commerce, being the Ministry concerned, forwarded his name to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet for final approval. Further, it is the case of the respondent that his name has been endorsed by the Home Minister and the second Member of the ACC, but the incumbent Cabinet Secretary who had earlier been the Managing Director of the Corporation, scuttled his appointment taking note of some serious allegations which at one point of time had been levelled against him. It appears that in 1994-95 the respondent had been dragged into various departmental enquiries and two criminal investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation at the instance of the said officer, but he was exonerated of any misdoing and the adverse entries of doubtful integrity were thereby deleted from his confidential roll.
Primary issue raised by the respondent was that his name had been recommended by all the authorities and two members of the ACC but in the final analysis the ACC had not accepted the recommendation and it was thus incumbent on the ACC to offer reasons for differing with the proposal made by the PESB even when there is no rule requiring reasons to be communicated to the officer concerned. Further according to respondent it was nonetheless open to the Court to examine the record to see if any reason had indeed been recorded. Reliance was placed by the respondent on “Union of India and Ors. vs. N.P.Dhamania & Ors. 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 1 in which it has been held that though the ACC was the appointing authority and therefore entitled to differ with the recommendation of the PESB, it was necessary to give reasons for doing so to obviate any chance of arbitrariness and for that purpose the Court could look into the record to satisfy itself.
After hearing arguments of both sides, bench comprising as above of Supreme Court held that facts of present case was identical with the above sited reference made by respondent. Further it was observed that division bench of Delhi High Court requested the counsel for the Union of India for reasons as to why the ACC had differed with the opinion of the PESB, but he had not been able to show any record.
Therefore Supreme Court did not find any merit in appeal and accordingly dismissed.
For getting complete judement as pronounced by the court, please contact me.
The significant question in law involved in the case was whether Appointment Committee of Cabinet have the exclusive jurisdiction to assess the suitability of a candidate and the court could not interfere?
The appeal in question was filed by way of special leave petition by the Union of India and the State Trading Corporation impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 18th May 2009 whereby the judgment of the Single Judge dated 9th January 2009 has been set aside and a direction has been issued that the case of the respondent for appointment as Director Marketing in the State Trading Corporation be reconsidered in the manner indicated therein.
The respondent Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar joined the services of the State Trading Corporation in April 2001 as Executive Secretary to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation and was on the relevant date working as Chief General Manager. A post of Director (Marketing) having fallen vacant, the respondent applied for the post on the 27th December 2005. Interviews were held on 4th March 2006 by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB for short) and two candidates were shortlisted, the respondent being at serial No.1, and one Neeraj Mishra at serial No.2 in order of preference. Consequent to the selection, the Central Vigilance Commissioner also issued a clearance for the respondent on or around 26th March 2006 and the Department of Commerce, being the Ministry concerned, forwarded his name to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet for final approval. Further, it is the case of the respondent that his name has been endorsed by the Home Minister and the second Member of the ACC, but the incumbent Cabinet Secretary who had earlier been the Managing Director of the Corporation, scuttled his appointment taking note of some serious allegations which at one point of time had been levelled against him. It appears that in 1994-95 the respondent had been dragged into various departmental enquiries and two criminal investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation at the instance of the said officer, but he was exonerated of any misdoing and the adverse entries of doubtful integrity were thereby deleted from his confidential roll.
Primary issue raised by the respondent was that his name had been recommended by all the authorities and two members of the ACC but in the final analysis the ACC had not accepted the recommendation and it was thus incumbent on the ACC to offer reasons for differing with the proposal made by the PESB even when there is no rule requiring reasons to be communicated to the officer concerned. Further according to respondent it was nonetheless open to the Court to examine the record to see if any reason had indeed been recorded. Reliance was placed by the respondent on “Union of India and Ors. vs. N.P.Dhamania & Ors. 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 1 in which it has been held that though the ACC was the appointing authority and therefore entitled to differ with the recommendation of the PESB, it was necessary to give reasons for doing so to obviate any chance of arbitrariness and for that purpose the Court could look into the record to satisfy itself.
After hearing arguments of both sides, bench comprising as above of Supreme Court held that facts of present case was identical with the above sited reference made by respondent. Further it was observed that division bench of Delhi High Court requested the counsel for the Union of India for reasons as to why the ACC had differed with the opinion of the PESB, but he had not been able to show any record.
Therefore Supreme Court did not find any merit in appeal and accordingly dismissed.
For getting complete judement as pronounced by the court, please contact me.
No comments:
Post a Comment