https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283303 The court upheld the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Government Advocate, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters and the confidentiality of the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision-making process. The court dismissed the appellant's challenge, stating that it could not interfere unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness, which were not present. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, setting aside observations on the appellant's grading in Annual Confidential Reports and confirming respondent No. 4's appointment. No costs were awarded. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283303 The court upheld the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Government Advocate, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in appointment matters and the confidentiality of the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision-making process. The court dismissed the appellant's challenge, stating that it could not interfere unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness, which were not present. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, setting aside observations on the appellant's grading in Annual Confidential Reports and confirming respondent No. 4's appointment. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283303