( 1 ) THE controversy involved herein centers around the process of selection to be adopted for the coveted post of director of central bureau of investigation (in short 'cbi') particularly in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in para 58[i (6)] of its judgment in the case of vineet narain and others v union of India and another.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the union of India against the order dated 8-2-2001 (Annexure-A) passed by the central administrative tribunal, Bangalore, in o. a. No. 1020 of 1999, -which was filed by the 1st respondent herein. The tribunal has held that non-consideration of respondent 1 in the selection process adopted for appointment of the 7th respondent-sri r. k raghavan to the post of director (cbd was contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in vineet narain's case, supra. Accordingly, it quashed the order of appointment of Sri r. k. raghavan (respondent 7) to the post of director (cbd dated 31-12-1998 (annexure-r5) issued by the central government. This writ petition was heard earlier by a division bench comprised of ashok bhan and chidananda ullal, jj. But, because of difference of opinion among them, on the question of law involved herein, the matter has been placed before me for third judge opinion.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri soli sorabji, learned attorney general of india, appearing for the union and Sri c. Dinakar, the contesting respondent 1, who has appeared in person. Admitted and concluded facts:

( 4 ) THE contesting respondent-sri dinakar is a member of the Indian police service (in short 'ips' ). He is of 1963 batch. As on 31-12-1998, when the 7th respondent was appointed as the director (cbi) under notification dated 31-12-1998 (annexure-r5), the inter se seniority of the four senior most officers in the all India ips seniority list was as under.

SI. No.

Name

Batch

1.

Sri R. K. Sharma

1962

2.

Sri H. P. Kumar

1963

3.

Sri R. K Raghavan

1963 (7th respondent)

4.

Sric. Dinakar

1963 (Contesting 1st respondent)

( 5 ) THE procedure adopted for the impugned appointment is a matter of record. The committee, which was constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court for appointment of the director (cbi), met on 11-11-1998. According to the directions of the Supreme Court this committee was required to draw up panel of ips officers on the basis of their seniority, integrity and experience in investigation and anti-corruption work. Further, final selection was to be made by the appointments committee of the cabinet (in short the 'acc') from the panel recommended by the above committee. But, for the purpose of selection to the post in question, the said committee took into consideration the inter se seniority and merit of only 33 ips officers who had been earlier short listed by the process of empanelment for holding the dg level post at the center another selection committee constituted by the central government under its order dated 19-2-1993 (Annexure-E ). Since the name of the contesting respondent-sri dinakar was not included in the panel so prepared, therefore the committee had no occasion to consider his suitability to the post though he was one of the first four senior most ips officers in the all India ips seniority list.

( 6 ) OUT of the 33 names of ips officers which were emp anelled by the acc and were placed before the committee for its consideration, it was found that 17 of such officers did not had the requisite background or experience in anti-corruption activities. The acrs and service records of other 16 ips officers were assessed on the basis of seniority, integrity and experience in investigation of anti-corruption work. Accordingly, out of them a panel of three names was prepared.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid panel of names as finalised by the committee was forwarded on 11-11-1998 to the cabinet secretariat for being placed before the acc for its consideration and orders. The acc found it proper to appoint 7th responden