Sensitive post appointment: initial approval does not create vested right, and suitability reassessment may include Agreed List material.

For a sensitive ex-cadre post, the Tribunal held that consideration of the applicant's inclusion in the Agreed List as relevant suitability material did not amount to punitive action and did not require a separate prior hearing; the natural justice challenge was rejected. It further held that selection and initial approval by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet did not create a vested or enforceable right to appointment in the absence of a final appointment order, and the Government could reconsider the matter when the Agreed List information came to light. The annulment of the earlier approval was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consideration of the applicant's inclusion in the Agreed List by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet, without prior notice or hearing to the applicant, violated the principles of natural justice; (ii) whether the applicant acquired any vested right to appointment as Member (Technical), CESTAT upon selection and initial approval by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet, so as to invalidate the subsequent annulment of that approval.

Issue (i): Whether the consideration of the applicant's inclusion in the Agreed List by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet, without prior notice or hearing to the applicant, violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The Agreed List was treated as relevant material for assessing suitability for a sensitive post. The Tribunal held that such consideration did not amount to punitive action and could validly be taken into account in the selection process. It further held that the applicant was not entitled to a separate opportunity of hearing on this aspect, and the absence of such hearing did not amount to violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The objection based on natural justice was rejected and was against the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant acquired any vested right to appointment as Member (Technical), CESTAT upon selection and initial approval by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet, so as to invalidate the subsequent annulment of that approval.

Analysis: The post was treated as an ex-cadre sensitive post, and the Tribunal held that recommendation by the Selection Committee and initial approval by the Appointments Committee did not by themselves confer an enforceable right to appointment, especially since no final appointment order had been issued. It also held that the Government was not bound to accept the recommendation in all circumstances and could reconsider the matter when the Agreed List information was brought to notice. The later reconsideration was therefore upheld as a valid administrative action.

Conclusion: The applicant had no vested right to appointment, and the annulment of the earlier approval was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the reconsideration of the applicant's suitability and declined to interfere with the administrative decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no final appointment order has been issued, initial selection or approval does not create a vested right to appointment, and relevant suitability material may be considered in reassessment for a sensitive ex-cadre post without violating natural justice.

---