UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 27-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 543 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2010) 
AUGUST 27 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Appointment/Selection - Selection of the 
candidate by Selection Board - Appointments Committee not 
granting approval to the selection - Writ petition - allowed by C 
Single Judge of High Court - Writ appeal allowed holding that 
order of Appointments Committee was unreasoned - Plea of 
the candidate that the rejection of selection was biased and 
based on certain enquiries and investigations against him in 
the past - On appeal, held: The rejection of selection of the 
D 
candidate was not correct as he was exonerated in the 
inquiries/investigations and his annual report for the relevant 
years was good - Appointments Committee also failed to 
show reasons for rejecting the selection of the candidate. 
The Respondent was shortlisted by Public 
Enterprises Selection Board (PSEB), and placed at serial 
No-1 for selection on the post of Director (Marketing) with 
the appellant-Corporation. Clearance was issued by the 
Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry 
concerned forwarded his name to the Appointments 
Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for final approval. But the 
Cabinet Secretary who was earlier the Managing Director 
of the appellant-Corporation, scuttled the appointment of 
the respondent, taking note of some serious allegations 
E 
F 
leveled against him at one point of time. 
G 
The respondent challenged the order, by filing writ 
petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A High Court. The LPA was allowed by Division Bench of 
the High Court holding that ACC had given no reasons 
for its order. Therefore, the instant appeal was filed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: It has not been denied that after the various 
enquiries and investigations had been completed and the 
respondent was exonerated on merits, he obtained two 
promotions, and the entry with regard to his doubtful 
integrity which had been made on account of the 
C pending matters, had also been removed. The Division 
Bench of the High Court had also called for the 
confidential record of the respondent and observed that 
he had been assessed as "very good" for the years 2001-
02 and 2002-03, "Excellent" for the year 2003-04 and 
D "Outstanding" for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. These 
were the crucial years in so far as the respondent's case 
for promotion to Director (Marketing) was concerned. The 
Division Bench also observed, that the Union of India had 
not been able to show any record indicating the reasons 
E as to why the ACC had differed with the opinion of the 
PESB leading to the only inference that no reasons 
whatsoever had been recorded. Therefore, there is no 
merit in the instant appeal. [Para 8) [549-C-F) 
Union of India and Ors. vs. N.P.Dhamania and Ors. 1995 
F Suppl. (1) sec 1 - relied on. 
Union of India and Anr. vs. Samar Singh and Ors. 1996 
(10) sec 555 - held inapplicable. 
G 
Chief Executive Officer vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi 2008 
(10) SCC 161; Union of India and Ors. vs. Ram Kumar Thakur 
2009(1) sec 122 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
H 
2008 (1 O) sec 161 
referred to. 
Para 5 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. BHASKARENDU DATIA 545 
MAJUMDAR 
2009(1 > sec 122 
referred to. 
1995 Suppl. (1) sec 1 
relied on. 
Para 5 
Paras 6 
and 7 
1996 (10) sec 555 
held inapplicable. Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7116 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.05.2009 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 168 of 2009. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG. Harish Chandra, SWA Qadri, S. 
Bakshi, R. Bastiasn, S. Kaushik Manish Bhardwaj, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma for the Appellants. 
A 
B 
c 
Ashok H. Desai, Rajiv K. Garg, Vineet Garg, Annam D.N. 
D 
Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Delay condoned. 
2. Leave granted. 
3. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by 
the Union of India and the State Trading Corporation impugning 
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi 
dated 18th May 2009 whereby the judgment of the Single 
Judge dated 9th January 2009 has been set aside and a 
direction has been issued that the case of the respondent for 
appointment as Director Marketing in the State Trading 
Corporation be re-considered in the manner indicated therein. 
The f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.