LexR.S. MIITAL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( ' 1,,,,- • R.S. MIIT AL A v. UNION OF INDIA MARCH 27, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B Service Law : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recrnitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963: Rule 4. C · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-Judicial Member-Selection-- Recommendation by Selection Board-Government's obligation to process-Held Government should take prompt and immediate action-Held selected candidate has no vested right to appointment but Government cannot decline appointment but for justifiable reasons. D A Selection Board, constitution under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Con· ditions of Service) Rules, 1963 and headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, prepared a panel of selected candidates for the posts of Judicial Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which the appellant E was placed at No. 4. On January 25, 1988, the Selection Board sent its recommendation to the Central Government for consideration but no appointment was made as a fresh advertisement was/Assued on February 22, 1990 inviting applications for the same post. The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the basis of 1988 panel. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the preparation of panel does not clothe the applicant with any right of appointment; the recommendations of the Selection Board being not mandatory were not enforceable by a writ of mandamus. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, an appeal was preferred in F G this Court. From the counter-affidavit filed by Government of India it was clear that two vacancies become available on August 14, 1988 and June S, 1989 respectively but there was nothing to show as to why the Central Government could not initiate action for appointment. However, on the H 1127 I 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. A basis of the action initiated on February 28, 1989, an offer of appointment was sent to candidate at SI. No.1 but he did not join. Thereafter, no further offer was made to any other candidate. Candidate at S. No. 2 also initiated legal proceedings for seeking appointment but later withdrew his appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. A person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing ·authority cannot ignore the select penal or decline to make the appoint- C ment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is oo the select panel. [1133-F] D E 2. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified. How- . ever, in the circumstances it would not be appropriate ta issue any direc- tion at this point of time in favour of the appellant. [1133-G-H, 1134-A] 3. Any recommendation of a Selection Board which is headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must be given prompt and immediate attention. F Once there is a recommendation by such a Selection Board, nothing should intervene between the recommendation and the consideration by the Ap· pointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The Ministry/Secretary in the Administrative Department is under a legal obligation and is duty bound to process the recommendation of the Selection Board by giving it a top G priority and.place the same before the ACC within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Selection Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must be placed before the ACC expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of recommendation. [1131-G-H, 1132-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5155 of H 1993. \ f ~J I ) R.S. MIITALv. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 1129 From- the Ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.