2006 (8) TMI 485 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Member Appointment Annulment

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to annul the Petitioner's appointment as Member (Technical) in CESTAT due to his inclusion in the 'Agreed ... CESTAT Member - Selection and appointment of Issues Involved:1. Legality of the deletion of the Petitioner's name from the appointment list for Member (Technical) in CESTAT.2. Consideration of the Petitioner's name being on the 'Agreed list' and its impact.3. Violation of principles of natural justice.4. Relevance of additional material considered by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (A.C.C.).5. The Petitioner's right to the appointment based on the Selection Committee's recommendation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the deletion of the Petitioner's name from the appointment list for Member (Technical) in CESTAT:The Petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which upheld the deletion of his name from the appointment list despite being recommended by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, comprising a Supreme Court Judge and Secretaries from the Ministry of Law and Finance, had included the Petitioner's name in the select list. However, the A.C.C. annulled his name due to his inclusion in the 'Agreed list' of officers of doubtful integrity.2. Consideration of the Petitioner's name being on the 'Agreed list' and its impact:The Petitioner's name appeared on the 'Agreed list,' a list prepared jointly by the CBI and the concerned department, indicating officers of perceived doubtful integrity. The Tribunal noted that the 'Agreed list' serves as a quiet check on the reputation of officers without contemplating punitive action. However, officers on this list are not to be posted on sensitive posts. The Tribunal found that the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT is considered sensitive, and the Petitioner's inclusion in the 'Agreed list' justified the annulment of his appointment.3. Violation of principles of natural justice:The Petitioner argued that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the issue of his name being on the 'Agreed list,' which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to a similar case (Inder Raj Soni v. Union of India) and concluded that sensitive posts should only be manned by officers with unblemished records. The Tribunal held that the consideration of the 'Agreed list' did not violate natural justice principles as it did not involve punitive action.4. Relevance of additional material considered by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (A.C.C.):The Petitioner contended that additional material, not placed before the Selection Committee, was considered by the A.C.C., which annulled his name from the list. The Tribunal acknowledged that the 'Agreed list' information came to the Revenue Secretary's notice after the Selection Committee's recommendation but before the A.C.C.'s decision. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. A.K. Doshi v. Union of India, held that in exceptional cases, additional material relevant to the appointment could be considered by the A.C.C.5. The Petitioner's right to the appointment based on the Selection Committee's recommendation:The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner did not acquire any right to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT merely by being recommended by the Selection Committee. The Tribunal emphasized that the appointment was to an ex-cadre post, and the Petitioner only had the right to be considered for the post. The Tribunal concluded that the A.C.C. had valid reasons to annul the Petitioner's name based on his inclusion in the 'Agreed list,' which indicated a doubt about his integrity.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the order did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that the post in question was sensitive and required individuals with proven integrity. The inclusion of the Petitioner's name in the 'Agreed list' justified the annulment of his appointment by the A.C.C. The Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.