LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus C. DINAKAR, L.P.S. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .. v. C. DINAKAR, l.P.S. AND ORS. APRIL 20, 2004 B (V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Service Law: Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Section 4A (as amended C by Section 26 of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003)-C.B.J. (Senior Police Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996-Appointment-Post of Director, CB/- Appointment of junior officer ignoring the senior-Appointment questioned as violative of directions given by Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case and as approved by Parliamentary Act-Tribunal held that the appointment D not in accordance with the directions-On appeal held: Appointment not justified-Procedure in the Rules inconsistent with the directions-Directions having been approved by Parliamentary Act and the same having laid down the procedure for appointment, the Rules would not survive-However, no relief granted since the aggrieved as well as the appointee have retired E Constitution of India, 1950--Artic/e 136-Scope of the jurisdiction-- Held, in exercise of the jurisdiction, Court cannot issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. A panel was prepared for promotion to the post of Director, CBI. Respondent No.1 though was the senior-most officer, was not included in the F panel Respondent No.6 was appointed to the post. Respondent No.1 chaUenged the appointment in Central Administrative Tribunal alleging that the appointment was done ignoring his case and that the procedure of the same was in violation of directions of Supreme Court for appointment of Director, CBI in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., [1998) 1 SCC 226. G Tribunal allowed the application quashing th~ appointment and directing initiation of fresh process of selection in the light of the Court's direction. In writ petition, High Court, by majority held against respondent No. 1. In appeal to this Court appellant-State contended that C.B.I. (Senior Police Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996 framed under constitutional provision, II 470 U.0.1. v. C. DINAKAR 471 having not been declared invalid, the provisions thereof were required to be A complied with and the same can co-exist with the directions of the Court, hence both should be given effect to; that the directions have been approved by legislature by promulgation of Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998 (later enacted by Parliament as Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003) amending Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 by substituting B Section 4 and inserting Section 4A. Respondent No. I contended that despite the fact that he had retired from service, the Court should direct that he be promoted to the post of Director, ' CBI with retrospective effect so that he gets consequential retiral benefits. Disposing of the appeals, the Court c HELD: I.I. The procedu~~ laid down in the C.B.I. (Senior Police Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996 is inconsistent with the directions issued by this Court in Vineet Narain case. The said directions were issued pending · legislation in this behalf by the Parliament Once by reason of a Parliame~tary D Act, the procedure for appointment of the Director, CBI has been laid down, the 1996 Rules would not survive. [478-D-F) Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., [1998) I SCC 226, referred to. 1.2. First respondent as also R-6 have retired. Therefore no relief in favour of the first respondent, as prayed for by him, can be granted as for all intent and purpose the directions issued by the Tribunal have been rendered ' infructuous. This Court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article E 136 of the Constitution of India, issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing Union of India to appoint the first respondent as Director, CBI with : F retrospective effect Moreover, the first respondent was never empanelled and, therefore, no question for issuing direction as regards to his appointment to the post of Director could arise. [479-D-F] 2. In the interest of justice, it is clarified as regards seniority of the otTtcers who are eligible for consideration therefor to the effect that ordinarily G all the IPS officers of the senior-most four batches in service on the date of' retirement of CBI Director, irrespective of their empanelment shall be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Director, CBI. The clarification would not lead the Committee to consider the cases of a large
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.