TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor Marketing in the State Trading Corporation be re- considered in the manner indicated therein. The facts of the case are as under: 4. The respondent Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar joined the services of the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter called Corporation ) in April 2001 as Executive Secretary to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation and was on the relevant date working as Chief General Manager. A post of Director (Marketing) having fallen vacant, the respondent applied for the post on the 27th December 2005. Interviews were held on 4th March 2006 by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB for short) and two candidates were shortlisted, the respondent being at serial No. 1, and one Neeraj Mishra at serial N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a candidate and the court could not interfere in this discretion except in a case of proven mala fides. The Letters Patent Appeal that followed has been allowed and that judgment is now challenged before us. The primary reason that weighed with the Division Bench was that the ACC had given no reasons whatsoever, not even on the file, as to why the recommendation of the PESB was being ignored. 5. Mr. Malhotra, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant Union of India, has submitted that as the ACC was the final authority to make the selection and appointment, it alone had the jurisdiction to determine the suitability of an officer and a decision taken by the committee was not open to challenge except on grounds of mala fid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. We find that the judgment in Samar Singh's case (supra) is inapplicable. In this matter the name of the officer had not been included in the panel prepared by the Special Committee with the result that his case was not considered by the ACC. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that the primary issue raised before the court was as to the exclusion of the officer from the panel prepared by the Standing Committee. We find that the other judgments cited by the learned ASG are not relevant to the present matter and do not merit any discussion whatsoever. On the contrary, N.P. Dhamania case (supra) is almost identical not only on facts but even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... junior officer was promoted with consequential benefits of seniority and salary etc. 8. These observations apply fully to the facts of this case. The Division Bench had also noticed, (and it has not been denied by the Union of India) that after the various enquiries and investigations had been completed and the respondent exonerated on merits he had obtained two promotions, first as General Manager and thereafter as Chief General Manager, and the entry with regard to his doubtful integrity which had been made on account of the pending matters, had also been removed. The Division Bench had also called for the confidential record of the respondent and observed that he had been assessed as very good for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
