9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 95 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana to the post of Special Director, CBI - Held that - We cannot question the decision taken by the Selection Committee which is unanimous and before taking the decision, the Director, CBI, had participated in the discussions and it is based on relevant materials and considerations. Further, even in the FIR filed by the CBI, the name of Shri Rakesh Asthana has not been mentioned at all. Thus, lodging of FIR will not come in the way of considering Shri Rakesh Asthana for the post of Special Director, after taking into consideration his service record and work and experience. From the Minutes of the Meeting (MoM) of the Selection Committee, we find that the news items reported in the print and electronic media that no decision was taken with respect to the appointment on the post of Special Director, CBI in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 21.10.2017 are factually incorrect. Likewise, the statement of the Professor of the University of London reported in the Indian Express appears to be based on the newspaper reports which have been found to be factually incorrect, and therefore, it has no substance. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana Respondent No. 2 herein to the post of Special Director, CBI does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Issues:
Validity of the appointment of Special Director, CBI challenged on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of integrity. Detailed Analysis: 1. Appointment Procedure for Director, CBI: The petitioner challenged the appointment of the Special Director, CBI, citing the procedure laid down in Vineet Narain case for the appointment of the CBI Director. The procedure involved recommendations by a Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, drawing up a panel of IPS officers based on seniority and integrity, with final selection by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. 2. Amendments to DSPE Act: The DSPE Act was amended in 2003 and 2013 to provide statutory effects to the appointment process of CBI officers. The appointment of officers above the rank of Superintendent of Police required recommendations from the Central Vigilance Commissioner and a Selection Committee, as per the amended provisions of the Act. 3. Challenges to Appointment: The petitioner contended that the appointment of the Special Director, CBI, was illegal as no decision was taken by the Selection Committee regarding the appointment of the respondent. Concerns were raised regarding the ongoing investigation involving the respondent and his son's association with certain companies under scrutiny. 4. Consultation and Recommendations: The Attorney General defended the appointment, stating that the Selection Committee had considered the Director's confidential letter and recommended the respondent based on his suitability and service record. The Committee's decision was unanimous, and the Director, CBI, had actively participated in the discussions. 5. Judicial Review and Decision: The Court emphasized the difference between judicial review and merit review, highlighting that lack of effective consultation could be subject to judicial review. However, in this case, the unanimous decision of the Selection Committee, based on relevant considerations, was upheld. The Court found no illegality in the appointment of the respondent as Special Director, CBI, dismissing the writ petition. 6. Final Verdict: After thorough consideration of the arguments presented, the Court concluded that the appointment of the respondent as Special Director, CBI, was not illegal. The Court found no fault in the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and dismissed the writ petition challenging the appointment. This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the legal judgment, addressing the issues raised regarding the appointment process, consultation, and legality of the appointment of the Special Director, CBI.
|
