2006 (6) TMI 438 - Tri - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the action taken based on anonymous complaints.
2. Adherence to recruitment rules and guidelines.
3. Consideration of the applicant's name being on the Agreed List.
4. Validity of the annulment of the applicant's name by ACC.
5. Whether the applicant had a vested right to the appointment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the action taken based on anonymous complaints:
The applicant argued that the department's action to annul his name from the approved list based on anonymous complaints violated Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, which mandate that no action should be taken on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. The applicant's counsel emphasized that such complaints must be filed without action, thus rendering the department's conduct illegal and contrary to established guidelines.

2. Adherence to recruitment rules and guidelines:
The applicant's counsel highlighted that recruitment for the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT, follows a set of rules involving a Selection Committee headed by a Supreme Court Judge. The applicant had received Vigilance Clearance, confirmed by the Department of Revenue. The counsel argued that the annulment of the applicant's name based on the Agreed List, which was not presented to the Selection Committee, was improper. The counsel cited government instructions stating that inclusion in the Agreed List should not bar promotions and that the list should be reviewed annually in consultation with the CBI.

3. Consideration of the applicant's name being on the Agreed List:
The applicant's counsel contended that the Agreed List should not be used against the applicant as it was not presented to the Selection Committee. The counsel referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, which stated that promotions should not be withheld based on suspicion or preliminary investigations. The counsel also argued that the Agreed List is not punitive and should not affect the applicant's selection.

4. Validity of the annulment of the applicant's name by ACC:
The respondents' counsel argued that the Selection Committee's recommendations are not binding on the ACC, which can consider additional material not available to the Selection Committee. The ACC annulled the applicant's name based on his inclusion in the Agreed List, which was not initially reported. The respondents admitted a lapse in not reporting this fact and took corrective action by submitting a new note to the ACC. The counsel maintained that the applicant had no vested right to the appointment, as the final order was never issued.

5. Whether the applicant had a vested right to the appointment:
The respondents' counsel argued that the applicant did not have a vested right to the appointment as Member, CESTAT, because the post is ex-cadre and not a promotion within the hierarchy. The ACC's decision to annul the applicant's name was based on rational grounds, considering the sensitive nature of the post. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not benefit from the department's lapse and that the ACC's decision was sound and did not violate principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's case, finding no legal infirmity in the ACC's decision to annul the applicant's name from the list of selected candidates. The Tribunal held that the applicant had no vested right to the appointment and that the ACC's decision was based on sound reasoning, with no violation of principles of natural justice. The OA lacked merit and was dismissed with no costs.