2001 Supreme(SC) 424

2001(2) Supreme 322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra and S.N. Variava, JJ.
Dr. A.K. Doshi etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
Union of India etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1692 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal No. 1693 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6435 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4386/2001
(C.C.No. 4869)
Decided on 2-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Anjoo Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, T.V. Ratnam, B. Krishna Prasad, Nagpal, S.N. Terdol, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of Appellant as Member (Technical) of Company Law Board was correctly set aside by Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court as he has been unduly favoured depriving duly selected candidate on the merit list of the Selection Committee.

Headnote:Company Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1993-Rule 4-Method of recruitment-Selection Committee formed-Selected Mr. Mathur as Member (Technical and included name of Dr. Doshi in reserve panel-Sent to Appointments Committee-Secretary made a note adverse to Mathur but favouring Doshi-Doshi appointed in place of Mathur-Mathur got it set aside from CAT-Affirmed by High Court in writ-Appeals against in Supreme Court-Whether appointment of Doshi was rightly set aside by CAT and upheld by High Court? (Yes)-Result-Selection be made from reserve panel-Order accordingly.

       Held : It is the Selection Committee which makes the selection on the basis of relevant materials. After the Selection Committee completes the exercise and recommends one or more names for appointment the recommendation along with the materials considered by the Selection Committee should be placed before the Appointments Committee without any further addition or alteration. If in an exceptional case the Appointments Committee feels that certain material which was not available to be considered by the Selection Committee has come into existence in the meantime, and the material is relevant for the purpose of appointment, then, the matter should be placed before the Appointments (sic) (Selection) Committee with the additional material for its consideration. Such a course, in our view, will be in accordance with the scheme of the Rules and the purpose of making appointment to the important public office. We are constrained to observe that the notings made by the Secretary of the Appointments Committee in the file, as noted earlier, was an attempt to interfere with the process of selection, which was neither permissible under the Rules nor desirable otherwise. By indulging in such unhealthy process the sanctity of the selection by the Selection Committee was attempted to be set at naught. Such conduct on the part of a senior and experienced Government officer does not commend us. It must be ensured that in future such a practice is not repeated. In this case the facts indicate that, even though the Selection Committee made a recommendation, the appointment of that candidate was not rejected/stalled. Thereafter even though directed to do so by the Appointments Committee, process of fresh selection was not initiated. The file was kept pending till name of the Appellant could be sent to the Appointments Committee. The facts lead to the only conclusion that there was rank favouritism and a blatant attempt to get the Appellant appointed as Member (Technical), Company Law Board. On these facts the ratio in Aggarwal s case, 2000(1) SCC 600 has no application. Also in the present case there is no office memorandum requiring selection from the reserve panel. (Para 14)

       In view of the facts set out herein above, we are of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in setting aside the appointment of the Appellant. The Appellant had been unduly favoured and the candidate selected by the Selection Committee and placed on the merit list had been deprived of appointment. (Para 15)

       However held, as the post of the Member (Technical), Company Law Board has remained vacant for a long time, it is absolutely necessary that this post be filled up as expeditiously as possible. In our view it is not at all necessary to send the matter to another Selection Committee for selecting afresh. In our view interest of justice would be served if the three names selected by the Selection Committee along with the materials placed before it are placed before the Appointments Committee without any nothings or comments by anybody. Only the Report of the Selection Committee and the materials placed before it must be placed before the Appointments Committee for its consideration. The Appointments Committee must now select from amongst these names. With these directions all the Civil Appeals are disposed of. There will be no Order as to costs. (Para 18)