Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 608 - SC - Indian LawsLegality of the appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) - Comptroller and Auditor General (‘CAG’), in its report dated 2nd February, 1994 for the year ended 31st March, 1993 took exception to the procedure adopted for import of Palmolein by the State Government - DoPT empanelled three officers vide its note dated 1st September, 2010. Vide the same note along with the Brief the matter was put up to the HPC for selecting one candidate out of the empanelled officers for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner - learned Attorney General, in his usual fairness, stated at the Bar that only the Curriculum Vitae of each of the empanelled candidates stood annexed to the agenda for the meeting of the HPC - It is well settled that mere conferment of wide discretionary powers per se will not violate the doctrine of reasonableness or equality - No reason has been given as to why in the present case the zone of consideration stood restricted only to the civil service - it is declared that the recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 of the High Powered Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act is non-est in law and, consequently, the impugned appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is quashed - The writ petitions are allowed
|