TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court confirms ACC's rejection for Presiding Officer role based on fresh report. Limited judicial review. Discretionary appointment.</h1> <h3>PRATAP SINGH AHLUWALIA AND TAPAN KUAMR DEO Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR</h3> PRATAP SINGH AHLUWALIA AND TAPAN KUAMR DEO Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of Appellants' Candidature by ACC.2. Validity of ACC's Decision in Light of IB Reports.3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226.4. Applicability of Precedents and Legal Principles.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Appellants' Candidature by ACC:The Appellants, practicing Advocates, responded to an advertisement for the post of Presiding Officer of DRT. They were recommended by the Selection Committee but their appointments were rejected by the ACC. The Appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the ACC acted arbitrarily by differing from the Selection Committee's recommendations without providing reasons.2. Validity of ACC's Decision in Light of IB Reports:The ACC deferred the Appellants' cases and called for a fresh IB report. The fresh IB report led the ACC to decline the appointments. The learned Single Judge, after examining the sealed records, found that the ACC's decision was based on the adverse IB report. The Division Bench, however, noted that the IB reports could not be termed as prima facie adverse but remanded the matter back to the ACC for reconsideration, which reaffirmed its decision.3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226:The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The Court must ensure that the procedure was followed, the decision was based on relevant materials, and was not influenced by extraneous factors or malice. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench found no procedural errors or extraneous influences in the ACC's decision-making process. The Court reiterated that it cannot substitute its decision for that of the ACC, especially when the decision is based on IB reports.4. Applicability of Precedents and Legal Principles:The Appellants relied on precedents like Union of India v. N. P. Dhamania and R. S. Mittal v. Union of India to argue that the ACC should provide reasons for differing from the Selection Committee's recommendations. However, the Court noted that the ACC is not required to communicate the reasons for its decision, as long as the records are produced before the Court when challenged. The Court distinguished the present case from other precedents, emphasizing the unique statutory framework governing DRT appointments.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the ACC's decision was justified based on the fresh IB report and the statutory framework. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the ACC's discretion in appointment decisions and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
TaxTMI 