Institutional integrity in public appointments requires consideration of all relevant material, while committee recommendations may validly be made by majority.

A statutory selection body recommending appointment to an integrity-sensitive public office must consider all relevant material bearing on institutional integrity, competence and public interest under the governing Act. Where adverse material, including prior departmental notings and pending proceedings, is not placed before or considered, the recommendation is vitiated and the resulting appointment cannot stand. The Court also clarified that the proviso to Section 4(1) does not require unanimity: in the absence of an express statutory mandate, the Committee may act by majority, and reading a veto into the process would amount to judicial legislation and undermine the workable operation of the selection mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recommendation made by the High Powered Committee for appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was valid in law in the light of the material placed before it and the statutory scheme of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. (ii) Whether the recommendation under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 required unanimity or could be made by majority.

Issue (i): Whether the recommendation made by the High Powered Committee for appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was valid in law in the light of the material placed before it and the statutory scheme of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the Central Vigilance Commission as an integrity institution and requires the High Powered Committee, while making a recommendation under the proviso to Section 4(1), to act on relevant material having nexus with the object and purpose of the Act. The decision had to be informed by institutional integrity, institutional competence, and the public interest served by an independent vigilance body. The record showed that material adverse to the candidate, including earlier departmental notings and pending proceedings, was not placed before or considered by the Committee, which instead proceeded mainly on the basis of the candidate's biodata and later clearance.

Conclusion: The recommendation was invalid and non-est in law, and the resulting appointment could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the recommendation under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 required unanimity or could be made by majority.

Analysis: The Act contains no express requirement of unanimity. The proviso to Section 4(1) entrusts the Committee with a collective statutory function, and Section 4(2) expressly provides that a vacancy in the Committee does not invalidate the appointment. A construction that confers a veto on one member would amount to judicial legislation and would make the statutory process unworkable.

Conclusion: Unanimity was not required, and the recommendation could validly be made by majority.

Final Conclusion: The appointment process was vitiated because the Committee failed to consider relevant material and the statutory test of institutional integrity, and the Court also clarified that majority decision-making under the selection mechanism was permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory selection body is entrusted with recommending appointment to an integrity-sensitive public office, it must consider all relevant material bearing on the institution's independence, competence, and public interest, and its collective decision is not invalid merely because it is not unanimous unless the statute so requires.

---