Candidate selected at serial No.1 by PESB was rejected by the Appointments Committee citing past allegations despite exoneration. The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's appeal, holding that ACC must record reasons when differing from PESB, and none existed on file; Division Bench direction to reconsider stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 543
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
v.
BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR (Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2010)
AUGUST 27 2010
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
Service Law - Appointment/Selection - Selection of the candidate by Selection Board - Appointments Committee not granting approval to the selection - Writ petition - allowed by Single Judge of High Court - Writ appeal allowed holding that order of Appointments Committee was unreasoned - Plea of the candidate that the rejection of selection was biased and based on certain enquiries and investigations against him in the past - On appeal, held: The rejection of selection of the candidate was not correct as he was exonerated in the inquiries/investigations and his annual report for the relevant years was good - Appointments Committee also failed to show reasons for rejecting the selection of the candidate.
The Respondent was shortlisted by Public Enterprises Selection Board (PSEB), and placed at serial No-1 for selection on the post of Director (Marketing) with the appellant-Corporation. Clearance was issued by the Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry concerned forwarded his name to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for final approval. But the Cabinet Secretary who was earlier the Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation, scuttled the appointment of the respondent, taking note of some serious allegations leveled against him at one point of time.
C
D
E
F
G
The respondent challenged the order, by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the
543
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Union of India and Ors. vs. N.P.Dhamania and Ors. 1995 F Suppl. (1) sec 1 - relied on. Union of India and Anr. vs. Samar Singh and Ors. 1996 (10) sec 555 - held inapplicable.
Case Law Reference:
H 2008 (1 O) sec 161
referred to. Para 5
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BHASKARENDU DATIA 545 MAJUMDAR
2009(1 > sec 122 referred to. Para 5 A 1995 Suppl. (1) sec 1 relied on. Paras 6 and 7
1996 (10) sec 555
held inapplicable. Para 7
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 168 of 2009.
c
P.P. Malhotra, ASG. Harish Chandra, SWA Qadri, S. Bakshi, R. Bastiasn, S. Kaushik Manish Bhardwaj, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Appellants.
Ashok H. Desai, Rajiv K. Garg, Vineet Garg, Annam D.N. Rao for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Delay condoned.
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 10 S.C.R.
546
A 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 B shortlisted, the respondent being at serial No.1, and one Neeraj Mishra at serial No.2 in order of preference. Consequent to the selection, the Central Vigilance Commissioner also issued a clearance for the respondent on or around 26th March 2006, and it is the case of the respondent that the Department of c Commerce, being the Ministry concerned, forwarded his name to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC for short) for final approval. Further, it is the case of the respondent tl1at his name has been endorsed by the Home Minister as the second Member of the ACC, but the incumbent Cabinet D Secretary who had earlier been the Managing Director of the Corporation, scuttled his appointment taking note of some serious allegations which at one point of time had been levelled against him. It appears that in 1994-95 the respondent had been dragged into various departmental enquiries and two criminal E investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation at the instance of the said officer, but he was exonerated of any misdoing and the adverse entries of doubtful integrity were thereby deleted from his confidential roll. As a consequence of what had happened, Neeraj Misra who was at serial No.2 was proposed for appointment but finally even his name too was F dropped and a direction was issued by the ACC to undertake a fresh process for filling up the vacancy. The respondent thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the ACC to assess the suitability of a G candidate and the court could not interfere in this discretion except in a case of proven mala tides. 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
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BHASKARENDU DATTA 547 MAJUMDAR [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
whatsoever, not even on the file, as to why the recommendation of the PESB was being ignored.
A
i3
C
D
E
F
G
H
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1o·s.c.R:
548
A 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 B 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, c N.P.Dhamania case (supra) is almost identical not only on facts but even on the legal issues raised. It has been held as under:
"19. Notwithstanding the fact that it is open to AAC which alone is the appointing authority and not the Minister D concerned, as urged by the respondent to differ from the recommendations of the DPC, it must give reasons for so differing to ward off any attack of arbitrariness. Those reasons will have to be recorded in the file. It requires to be stated at this stage that we have perused the file in the E instant case. We find no reasons have been recorded for differing from the recommendations of the DPC. That is why the tribunal also inter alia observes in the impugned judgment as under:
F
However, the counsel for the respondent felt helpless in the matter and he failed to provide us any inkling of what prevailed with the ACC in dropping the petitioner and four others out of the select panel of 59 officers.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR v, BHASKARENDU DATIA 549 MAJUMDAR [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
always open to the authority concerned to produce the A necessary records before the Court.
B
C
D
E
F
K.K.T
Appeal dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appointments Committee could reject a PESB-recommended candidate without recording reasons on file.
Whether the court could examine the record to verify reasons for differing from PSEB recommendation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Ors. vs. N.P. Dhamania and Ors.Relied on¶6
1995 F Suppl. (1) sec 1
Union of India and Anr. vs. Samar Singh and Ors.Distinguished¶7
1996 (10) sec 555
Chief Executive Officer vs. Biswa Bhusan NandiReferred¶5
2008 (10) SCC 161 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors. vs. Ram Kumar ThakurReferred¶5
2009(1) sec 122
Union of India & Anr.
Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar
Harjit Singh Bedi
J.M. Panchal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
