Consultation in CBI appointments operates as part of committee deliberation, not as a veto, where meaningful consideration is shown.

Section 4C of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act required appointment of officers of Superintendent rank and above on the recommendation of a committee with consultation of the Director, CBI. The selection committee considered the confidential note, discussed the matter with the Director, and recorded reasons for accepting the recommendation. As no verified material established the identity allegation and no substantiated record displaced the CBI's proposal, consultation was treated as part of the committee's deliberative process and not as a veto in favour of the Director. Judicial review was confined to the legality of the consultation process, not the merits of the committee's assessment, and the appointment was held not vitiated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of the Special Director, CBI was illegal for want of proper consultation under the governing statutory framework, and whether the pending allegations and material referred to in the record rendered the recommendation invalid.

Analysis: Section 4C of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 required appointment of officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above on the recommendation of a committee, with consultation of the Director, CBI. The selection committee had considered the confidential note placed before it, discussed the matter with the Director, CBI, and recorded reasons for accepting the recommendation. The record showed that the committee found no verified material establishing that the person named in the note was the same person under consideration, and no substantiated material was brought on record to displace the proposal already moved by the CBI itself. In such a setting, the consultation was part of the committee's deliberative process and did not create a veto in favour of the Director, CBI. The scope of judicial review was confined to examining legality of the consultation process, and not reappreciating the merits of the committee's assessment.

Conclusion: The appointment was not vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, or lack of effective consultation, and the challenge to the appointment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires consultation before appointment and the matter is considered by a duly constituted selection committee, consultation operates as part of the committee's deliberative process unless the record shows absence of meaningful consultation or other legal infirmity; courts will not undertake a merit review of the committee's unanimous assessment on the available materials.

---