A.P. AGGRAWAL versus GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 16-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A.P. AGGRAWAL 
v. 
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF 
DELHI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I 6, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M. SRINIVASAN AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Office Memorandum No. 39021118184-Estt. (B) dated 14-5-1987, Govt. of C 
India, Ministry of Personnel. P.G. and Pensions (Department of Personnel 
and Training)-Vacancy arising for the post of Member Sales-tax Appellate 
Tribunal, due to resignation of the selected member within 6 months of joining 
the post-Appellant was the only other member recommended earlier by the 
Selection Committee in the panel of two names for consideration of appointment D 
by the Central Government-Hence appellant claiming appointment to the said 
post-Central Government, instead, initiating a fresh process of selection--
Application before the Central Admininstrative Tribunal and subsequent writ 
petition before the High Court, dismissed-On qppeal-Held, initiation of 
fresh process of selection is not valid and rejection of appellant's name 
without any reason is arbitrary and unconstitutional-A combined reading E 
of Section 13(4) of the Act and Office Memorandum dated 14-5-1987 shows 
that a public duty is cast on the concerned authorities to fill up the vacancy 
within as short time as possible provided the conditions set out in the 
Memorandum are present-It was not open to the govt. to ignore the panel 
which was already approved and accepted by it and resort to a fresh selection 
process without giving any proper reason for resorting to the same-Even F 
if it is to be said that the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum 
are discretionary, such discretion is not to be exercised in an arbitrary 
manner-Appellant directed to be appointed as Member, Sales-tax Appellate 
Tribunal-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Arbitrariness-Delhi Sales 
Tax Act, 1975-S.13(4). 
G 
Applications were invited for appointment to the post of Member, Sales-
tax Appellate Tribunal. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose 
recommended a panel of two names for consideration for appointment by the 
Central Government. The panel consisted of one Mand the appellant M was 
443 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R 
A appointed to the said post but soon thereafter he resigned. 
~ 
The appellant made numerous representations to the concerned 
authorities for appointing him as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal but 
to no avail. The Central Government caused a fresh advertisement to be issued 
B 
calling for fresh applications and proceeded to process the applications received 
pursuant thereto. The appellant filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal for quashing the fresh advertisement and the process 
of selection pursuant thereto and for a direction to appoint him as Member, 
Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant relied upon Office Memorandum 
No. 39021118/84-Estt. (B) dated14-5-1987 issued by the Central Government 
c which stipulated that reserve lists may be operated in certain cases where a 
vacancy is created by a candidate resigning the post or in the event of his 
death, within a period of six months from the date of his joining the post The 
said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Writ petition filed in the High 
Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the instructions 
contained in the office memorandum dated 14-5-1987 were mandatory and the 
vacancy in the post having occurred within a period of six months from the 
date of joining of the selected candidate, it should be filled up by appointing 
the appellant. 
E 
On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents it was contended that 
the said instructions were only directory and there was absolutely no necessity 
for the Govt. to strictly comply with the same. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I.I. On the facts, all the conditions set out in the Office 
Memorandum issued by the Central Govt. dated 14-5-1987 are fulfilled in the 
present caseand the rejection of the appellant's name without any reason 
therefor is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The initiation of fresh process of 
selection is not valid and hence quashed. The respondents are directed to · 
G appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal as he is the 
only other person in the panel of names selected by the Select Committee and 
as nothing has been brought out against him by the Govt. [452-D, El 
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.