The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) in making appointments to statutory tribunals, such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), is not subject to judicial review unless vitiated by malice in law or fact.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 2nd February, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions of the present Appellants who pleaded that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (“ACC”) had committed an error in rejecting their candidature for appointment as Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) in the Jaipur and Aurangabad Benches.

2. Both the Appellants, who are practising Advocates, responded to an advertisement dated 30th October, 2015 inviting applications to fill up four “clear” vacancies and 11 anticipated vacancies in the post of Presiding Officer of DRT at various Benches including those at Jaipur and Aurangabad. Both Appellants were called for interviews by the Selection Committee which was presided over by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. These interviews took place on 30th March, 2016. Both Appellants were recommended by the Selection Committee for being appointed to the post of Presiding Officer DRT - the Appellant in LPA No. 52/2018 was recommended for the DRT at Jaipur and the Appellant in LPA No. 60/2018 for the DRT at Aurangabad. They were asked to communicate the willingness to accept the appointment which each of them did within the time stipulated.

3. While the Appellants were waiting for their respective letter of appointment, a fresh notification dated 29th September, 2016 was issued inviting applications for the posts of Presiding Officers at various DRTs including Jaipur and Aurangabad. This led to the Appellants making an inquiry about their non-appointment.

4. Thereafter, while the Appellant in LPA No. 52/2018 filed in WP(C) No. 10196/2016 in this Court the Appellant in LPA No. 60/2018 filed in WP(C) No.10338/2016. On 25th January, 2017 a common order was passed disposing of both writ petitions after noting the submission on behalf of the Respondents that the cases of both Appellants were pending consideration before the ACC and a decision was expected soon. However, when for more than six months there was no response, applications were filed by both the Appellants in this Court. In those proceedings, the Respondents produced copies of the office memorandum dated 8th August 2017 informing each of the Appellants that the proposal for their respective appointments as Presiding Officers of the DRT had been declined by the ACC.

5. Thereafter fresh writ petitions were filed by both the Appellants. While the Appellant in LPA 52 of 2018 filed W.P. (C) No. 7053 of 2017, the Appellant in LPA 60 of 2018 filed W.P. (C) No. 7050 of 2017 in this Court challenging the decision of the ACC. These two writ petitions have been dismissed by the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, the main submission of the Appellants was that the ACC had acted arbitrarily in differing from the recommendation of the Selection Board and previous decision of the ACC without giving any reasons. The learned Single Judge called for and examined the records and observed as under:

“5. The record of ACC in a sealed cover has been produced for perusal of this Court, for passing appropriate orders in these petitions. The sealed cover is opened and file regarding appointment of Presiding Officers in DRT is perused and thereupon, it becomes apparent that the Selection Committee, after interviewing the candidates, had recommended the names of candidates (including petitioners) for the post of Presiding Officers of DRT on 30th March, 2016 and the said recommendation was placed before the ACC on 1st February, 2017 and the case of petitioners was deferred while calling for a fresh report from Intelligence Bureau. It becomes apparent on perusal of the file produced that case of petitioners was resubmitted along with fresh IB Report but ACC on 1st August, 2017, after perusal of IB Report, has declined the proposal for appointment of petitioners as Presiding Officers of DRT in Aurangabad and Jaip