1996 (11) TMI 472 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Deputy Govt Advocate appointment, emphasizes limited review scope. No interference without malice/arbitrariness.

The court upheld the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Government Advocate, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in appointment ... - Issues:Appointment on the post of Deputy Government Advocate in the Central Agency Section in the Ministry of Law of the Government of India.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the appointment of a Deputy Government Advocate in the Central Agency Section. The appellant and respondent No. 4 were both employed in the Central Agency Section, with respondent No. 4 being senior to the appellant. The appointment to the post of Deputy Government Advocate was made through a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) process. The appellant challenged the selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that despite being graded as 'outstanding' in two out of three Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), she was graded as 'very good' by the DPC, while respondent No. 4 was consistently graded as 'very good.' The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating it could not act as an appellate authority over the DPC's decision unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness.The appellant's counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in questioning the 'outstanding' grading given in the ACRs for two years, as both the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer had concurred on this grading. The counsel argued that since the appellant received 'outstanding' remarks in two ACRs, she should not have been graded as 'very good' by the DPC. However, the Tribunal correctly noted that its role was not to review the merits of the selection process unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness, which were not present in this case.The Tribunal emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of appointment and selection, stating that it could not interfere with the DPC's decision unless it was vitiated by malice or arbitrariness. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that it should not act as an appellate authority over the DPC's decision-making process. The court held that the DPC's grading of the appellant as 'very good' instead of 'outstanding' was not arbitrary, as it followed a confidential procedure. While upholding the selection of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Government Advocate, the court set aside the Tribunal's observations regarding the appellant's grading in the ACRs, stating they could not be upheld.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, affirming the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Government Advocate based on the DPC's decision. The court clarified the limited role of judicial review in such matters and upheld the confidentiality of the DPC's grading process.