9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary (Revenue) in the Ministry of Finance was constituted. The Petitioner was one of the applicants. The Selection Committee recommended three names for the post of Member (Technical). The select list as drawn up, included the names of (1) Mr. P.V. Sairam, (2) Mr. R.K. Ramchandani (Petitioner herein) and (3) Mr. P. Karthikeyan. A wait list of three names was also prepared. After processing the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the cabinet secretary, forwarded a note for A.C.C. in March, 2005 which came to be considered sometime in April, 2005. The Cabinet Committee according to Petitioner had withheld his appointment and the Petitioner being aggrieved by that action has approached the Tribunal. It was the case of the Petitioner before the learned Tribunal that after the Selection Committee had recommended his name and he has been granted vigilance clearance by the department of Revenue, by O.M. dated 19-4-2004, he ought to have been appointed. According to the Petitioner, he came to know that his name had been annulled as his name found a place in the Agreed list . This information was not placed before the Selection Committee. Secondly the Agreed list cannot be used as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al rejected that contention by holding that it was not possible to accept the logic that an Appellate Tribunal hearing appeals from a Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal will be sensitive only when the posts of Member of the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal are sensitive. It noted that the very fact that selection of Member, CESTAT is done by a Committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court by itself is sufficient enough to indicate that the Government regards such post as a sensitive post and such classification cannot be regarded as irrational. The third argument raised was that material in addition to the material placed before the Selection Committee, was placed before the A.C.C. in its meeting which approved the annulment of applicant's name from the list. The Tribunal noted that the Agreed list came to the notice of the Revenue Secretary on 16-5-2005. Another A. C. C. note was floated on 30-5-2005 and the A.C.C. approved the annulment of Petitioners name. The Tribunal than posed a question to itself, whether this was in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. A.K. Doshi v. Union of India, 2001 (4) SCC 43. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order of C.A.T. is liable to be set aside. 5. We may first note the judgment in the case of Dr. A.K. Doshi v. Union of India, 2001 SCC (L S) 10/2. In that case, the Selection Committee had selected the appellant before the Supreme Court as a member of the Company Law board. The Supreme Court noted, that the Secretary, Appointments Committee could not have made any adverse comments and place extra adverse material against the selectee and what was to be placed was the material considered by the Selection Committee without any addition or alteration. The Apex Court noted that in that case, the action of the Secretary to the Appointments Committee, by adding noting in the file was an attempt to interfere with the process of selection, which was neither permissible under the Rules nor desirable otherwise. At the same time, the court noted as under : If in an exceptional case the Appointments Committee feels that certain material which was not available to be considered by the Selection Committee has come into existence in the meantime, and the material is relevant for the purpose of appointment, then, the matter should be placed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e involving moral turpitude but on whom, in view of exceptional circumstances, a penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is imposed. Also those awarded departmentally a major penalty on charges of lack of integrity on charge of gross dereliction of duty in protecting the interest of Government although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof.. Those against whom proceedings for a major penalty or court trial are in progress for alluded acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude and those who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical ground and in whose case on the basis of evidence, during the trial there remained a reasonable suspicion against their integrity. These are categories whose names should not be included. In our opinion, the Agreed list is distinct from the list of public servant of gazetted status of doubtful integrity. The O.M. of 1969 does not repeal or rescind the O.M. of 1966. On the contrary it notes that the practice of making the Agreed list will not be affected by the O.M. of 1969. There is no denial that the Petitioner's name was in the agreed list for more than one year.. The Petitioner seeks appointment as Member (Tech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Selection Committee does is to recommend the names, based on the material and the oral interview. The Selection Committee normally is not clothed with the power of calling for vigilance report as that is in the domain of the Appointing Authority. As noted earlier, normally when the selection is done by the committee prescribed over by the Judge of the Supreme Court, the Government ought to accept the recommendation except for valid reasons. The Appointment Committee, considering that the Petitioners name had figured on the agreed list annulled the name of the Petitioner. This in our opinion, would be an exceptional circumstance which the Appointment Committee could have considered as noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. A.K. Doshi. It is true that when the Selection Committee Net, the material was available but not placed before the Selection Committee. Even if the Selection Committee prepares a list, there is always a requirement of vigilance clearance for such high posts, before the appointing authority appoints a person to a sensitive post and in this case to an Appellate Tribunal discharging quasi judicial functions. The question of making available to the Petitioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
