Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA I
Navneet Kumar – Appellant
Versus
U. O. I. Through Secy. Deptt. of Personnel & Training – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India have been instituted assailing the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government, whereby the proposal of Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as "DoPT") for denial of extension of term of appointment of the petitioner as Judicial Member in Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") has been approved. This decision has been taken in purported compliance of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6640 (S/B) of 2017.
2. Challenge herein has also been made to the communication dated 24.10.2019 made by the DoPT whereby it has been informed that the matter relating to extension of term of appointment of the petitioner was placed before Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (herein after referred to as "ACC") and the ACC has approved the denial of extension of the term of the petitioner for another term as Judicial Member of CAT.
3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Aditya Tewari for the petitioner and Shri S. B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India along
when a recommendation is made by the Selection Committee comprising of such high ranking officials and even constitutional functionary, there has to be a very strong and justifiable reason to decline....
Conscious decision was taken by Selection Committee not to recommend extension of tenure of Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal, cannot be interfered with.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adjudicatory experience and the role of the Search-cum-Selection Committee in making recommendations for the appointment of the C....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial dominance in the Selection Committee and the need to maintain the judicial primacy over the appointment process for th....
The power to recommend termination of a judicial officer's services rests with the Full Court of the High Court, and the Standing Committee does not have the authority to make such recommendations.
The court affirmed that promotion must consider merit as the primary criterion, and procedural flaws in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate corresponding punishment orders.
Petitioner/Intervener with regard to violation of Rule 16(1) of Rules, 1958 and FR 56(d) and given a detailed finding that there is no violation of the said Rules, in view of the power of relaxation ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
