Limited judicial review in tribunal appointments: select list inclusion does not create an enforceable right to appointment.

Judicial review over non-appointment to a Judicial Member post under the Administrative Tribunals Act is narrowly confined where the Government consults the Chief Justice of India and places the relevant material, including antecedents and intelligence inputs, before that constitutional authority. Such consultation is an effective safeguard, and the court will not reassess the merit-based decision as an appellate body. Mere inclusion in a select list does not create a vested or enforceable right to appointment, though the decision must remain bona fide and non-arbitrary. The stated conclusion is that the challenge to non-appointment failed and selection alone could not compel appointment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the scope of judicial review permits interference with the Central Government's decision not to appoint a recommended candidate as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India; (ii) whether mere inclusion in the select list confers any enforceable right to appointment.

Issue (i): whether the scope of judicial review permits interference with the Central Government's decision not to appoint a recommended candidate as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Analysis: The appointment of a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal is governed by the special scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and is to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Such consultation is not an empty formality; it is an effective safeguard to ensure judicial independence and suitability for a sensitive judicial office. Where the Government places the relevant material, including antecedents and intelligence inputs, before the Chief Justice of India and obtains concurrence, the court does not sit in appeal over the merit-based assessment or re-evaluate the material as if it were an appellate authority. Judicial review in such a matter is therefore narrowly confined and does not extend to substituting the court's view for the decision taken on the basis of that consultation.

Conclusion: Interference with the non-appointment decision was not warranted; the challenge to the decision failed.

Issue (ii): whether mere inclusion in the select list confers any enforceable right to appointment.

Analysis: Inclusion in a select list is only an invitation to appointment and does not by itself create an indefeasible or vested right to be appointed. The appointing authority is not bound to fill every vacancy merely because a candidate is selected, though any decision must be bona fide and non-arbitrary. In the present context, the authorities were entitled to withhold appointment for reasons arising from the material considered in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the select list could not be enforced as a right.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to appointment arose from mere selection; the writ claim based solely on inclusion in the list was untenable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal by the Union of India succeeded and the judgment granting relief was set aside, while the connected appeals challenging the contrary High Court decision were dismissed. The governing principle reaffirmed is that appointments to constitutionally sensitive judicial offices made through a mandatory consultative process are subject to only limited judicial review, and selection alone does not confer a right to appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where appointment to a judicial office requires effective consultation with the Chief Justice of India, courts will not ordinarily interfere with a non-appointment decision based on material placed before that constitutional authority, and inclusion in a select list does not create an enforceable right to appointment.

---