DR. A.K. DOSHI versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 02-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-, 
A 
DR. A.K. DOSHI 
v. 
\ 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 2, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRAANDS.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Seniice La1v : 
Company Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions 
c 
of Service of Members) Rules, 1993: Rule 4. 
Membe1; Company Law Board-Selection and appointment of-Selec-
tion Cammi/lee recommended the appointment of a person to the post of 
Member(Technical) and also constituted a resen•e panel-Ce11ain allegations 
against this person brought to the notice of the Appointments Committee-But 
D 
these allegations not b1vught to the notice oft he Selection Committee although 
they related to a period prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee-
Accordingly, another person appointed as Member(Teclmical)-Such appoint-
ment was set aside by High Cou11-Validity of-Held: It is not necessa1y to 
send the matter to another Selection Committee for selection afresh-Only the 
E 
report of the Select;on Committee, lvithout any noting or comments, must be 
placed bef01• the Appointments Commitlee for its Consideration-Appointment 
,, 
rightly set aside. 
The appellant was placed in the reserve panel for the post of Mem· 
ber (Technical) of the Company Law Board pursuant to the recommenda· 
F 
tion of a Selection Committee constituted under Rule 4 of the Company 
Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of 
Members) Rules, 1993, while respondent No. 2 was recommended to be 
,..._
appointed to the post of Member (Technical). However, the Secretary to 
the Appointments Committee brought certain allegations against respond· 
G 
ent No. 2 to the notice of the Appointments Committee. But these allega-
lions were not brought to the notice of the Selection Committee although 
they related to a period prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee. 
Ultimately, the appellant was appointed as Member (Technical), Company 
Law Board. 
... 
H 
Respondent No. 2 challenged the appointment of the appellant be-
320 
DR. A.K. DOSHI v. U.Ol. [SN. VARlAVA, J.] 
321 
fore the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the ap-
A 
; 
pellant's appointment and his writ petition was dismissed by the High 
Court. Hence this appeal. 
.. 
, 
... 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The appointment of the appellant was correctly set aside. 
B 
However, as the post of Member (Technical), Company Law Board has 
remained vacant for a long time, it is absolutely necessary that this post be 
filled up as expeditiously as possible. It is not at aU necessary to send the 
matter to another Selection Committee for selecting afresh. The interest 
of justice would be served if the names selected by the Selection Committee 
along with the materials placed before it are placed before the 
C 
Appointments Committee without any noting or comments by anybody. 
Only the Report of the Selection Committee and the materials placed 
before it must be placed before the Appointments Committee for its con· 
sideration. The Appointments Committee must now select from amongst 
these names. (328-E-G] 
D 
A.P Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2000] 1 sec 600, held 
inapplicable. 
Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power CorporaJion of India Ltd., (1995] Supp. 
3 sec 81, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1692 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1999 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in CWP No. 733/1999. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1693 and 1694 of 2001. 
Abbay Kumar Bhandari, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Anjoo Jain, Ms. Anjali 
Doshi, Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, T.V. Ratnam, B. Krishna Prasad, Nagpal, S.N. 
Terdol and Ashok K. Mahajan for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
These three Appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 20th 
December, 1999 of the Delhi High Court. They are being disposed of by this 
H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
common Judgment. In this Judgment parties will be referred to in their 
capacity in Civil Appeal arising from SLP No. 19580 of 1999. 
~ 
Btiefly stated the facts are as follows: 
In 1997 some posts of Member, Company Law Board had fallen vacant. 
B 
A Selection Committee headed by Mr. Justice S. C. Agarwal, a nominee of 
the Chief Justice of India, was constituted to make the selection. The minutes 
of the Selection Committee, dt. 2nd June 1997, read as follows: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"4. On the basis of the performance of tl1e candidates in the interview 
and taking int

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