TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re it must be placed before the Appointments Committee for its consideration. The Appointments Committee must now select from amongst these names. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1692 TO 1694 OF 2001 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2001 - D.P. MOHAPATRA AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Anjoo Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, T.V. Ratnam, B. Krishna Prasad, Nagpal and S.N. Terdol, Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appearing Parties. JUDGMENT Variava, J. - Leave granted. 2. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20-12-1999 of the Delhi High Court. They are being disposed of by this common judgment. In this judgment parties will be referred to in the capacity in civil appeal arising from S.L.P. No. 19580 of 1999. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : In 1997 some posts of member, the CLB had fallen vacant. A Selection Committee headed by Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, a nominee of the Chief Justice of India, was constituted to make the selection. The minutes of the Selection Committee, dated 2-6-1997, read as follows : "4. On the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview and taking into consideration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments Committee was also informed that against the 2nd respondent there was a complaint pertaining to publication of an advertisement for shifting of the Office of Regional Director, Kanpur to Ghaziabad or Noida on which Rs. 1,000 was spent. On a query from the Court we were informed that the first allegation had been brought to the notice of the Selection Committee but the other two allegations had not been brought to the notice of the Selection Committee even though they related to a period prior to the date when the Selection Committee met to select suitable candidates for the post. We were informed that the other two allegations were not brought to the notice of the Selection Committee as in those cases only a warning had been issued and no entry had been made in the confidential records. One wonders how such material could have been placed before the Appointments Committee when admittedly it was not considered serious enough to be placed before the Selection Committee. 5. By placing on file the abovementioned comments and materials, which had not been placed before the Selection Committee, the Secretary of the Appointments Committee effectively ensures that the 2nd respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for the post does not merit acceptance. As regards Dr. Doshi, after his having been exonerated of all the charges against him, it appears that his appointment can be approved. ACC may like to approve the appointment of Dr. A.K. Doshi as Member (Technical), Company Law Board till the date of his superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years." Thus even at that stage it was made sure that the Appointments Committee did not consider and/or accept the name of the 2nd respondent but considers the name of the appellant. It is under these circumstances that the appellant came to be appointed as Member (Technical), CLB. 8. The appointment of the appellant was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 3-2-1999 quashed the appointment of the appellant. The appellant challenged the order dated 3-2-1999 in a writ petition before the High Court at Delhi. This writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20-12-1999. 9. Civil appeal arising out of SLP No. 19580 of 1999 is filed by the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by his appointment being set aside by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the Government initiated process for fresh selection. This was challenged by the appellant and his challenge was upheld by this Court. It must, however, be noted that, in that case the selected candidate had left. The appellant s contention was also upheld on basis of OM, dated 14-5-1975, issued by the Central Government which provided that vacancy could be filled in from the reserve panel. Further this Court directed the Government to appoint that appellant as there was nothing against him. Based on this case it was submitted that the 1st respondent was bound to appoint the appellant (herein) once the name of the 2nd respondent had been rejected. 13. We are unable to accept this argument. The Government of India has framed the Company Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1993 ( the said Rules ). These Rules were notified on 28-4-1993. Rule 4 provides for the method of recruitment of Members. It provides that the selection of Members shall be made by the Government of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his nominee. Thus, the appointment can only be in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the facts set out hereinabove, 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. 15. It was also submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the 2nd respondent. It was submitted that the appellant had already become a Member of the CLB. It was submitted that by virtue of section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1955, the Central Administrative Tribunal could only exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of an All India Service or to any Civil Service of the Union or a Civil Post under the Union or to a post connected with Defence or in the Defence Services, being a post filled by a civilian. It was submitted that the post of a Member (Technical), Company Law Board was neither an All India Service nor a Civil Service of the Union nor a civil post under the Union. Reliance was placed upon the authority in the case of Canara Bank v. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
