Advisory selection recommendations and limited judicial review govern tribunal appointments based on antecedent-verification material.

Under the appointment scheme for Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Selection Committee's recommendation was only advisory, and the Central Government acting through the ACC retained the final power to accept or decline appointments. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to examining whether the prescribed procedure was followed, relevant material was considered, and the decision was free from extraneous influence or malice; the writ court could not reappraise the Intelligence Bureau material or substitute its own view for that of the ACC. The record had to disclose the basis of the decision when challenged, but separate communication of reasons was not required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet could differ from the Selection Committee's recommendation for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the basis of the Intelligence Bureau report and whether the writ court could interfere with that assessment.

Analysis: The appointment scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the 1998 Rules treated the Selection Committee's role as recommendatory and left the final decision to the Central Government through the ACC. The record showed that the candidates were recommended, their antecedents were verified, a fresh Intelligence Bureau report was called for, and the ACC then declined the appointments. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to the decision-making process, namely whether the prescribed procedure was followed, whether relevant material was considered, and whether any extraneous factor or malice vitiated the decision. The Court held that the writ court cannot sit in appeal over the ACC's appreciation of the material or substitute its own view merely because another view of the IB report was possible. The reasoning in the cited precedents established that recommendations were not binding and that reasons need not be separately communicated, though the record must disclose the basis of the decision when challenged.

Conclusion: The ACC's decision not to appoint the appellants was upheld and no ground for judicial interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the final appointing authority was entitled to assess the relevant material independently, and the Court would not replace that assessment with its own.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of statutory appointments where the selection body's recommendation is only advisory, the final appointing authority may act on relevant antecedent-verification material, and judicial review is limited to legality of the decision-making process rather than merits of the assessment.

---