Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned notification modifying the appointment of the Member cum Acting Chairman of BIFR was invalid for want of fresh approval and for allegedly extending a completed tenure beyond what had been sanctioned.
Analysis: The governing provision permitted appointment for a specified term not exceeding the statutory limit, and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet was the competent authority on the appointment proposal. The record showed that the approval granted in 2008 was for appointment till the appointee attained the age of 65 years or until abolition of BIFR or further orders. The later notification of 31.10.2011 was treated as correction of an error in the earlier ministerial notification, not as a fresh appointment or unlawful extension. The Court also held that the Secretariat could not alter the substance of the proposal, but found no illegality in the appointment as finally approved by the competent authority.
Conclusion: The challenge to the modified notification failed; the appointment and continuance of the fourth respondent were upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent authority has approved an appointment for a particular tenure, a subsequent ministerial notification may be corrected to conform to that approval, and such rectification does not amount to a fresh appointment or invalid extension.