Delhi High Court
Sunir Khurana vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3052/2014
% 16th April, 2015
SUNIR KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Ravi and Mr. S. Aravindh,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and Mr.
Ajay Kalra, Advocates for R-1 to 3
Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate for
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks relief of extension of his tenure at the post of
Director (Marketing) of the respondent no. 4 i.e MMTC Limited. The
extension which is denied to him is in terms of the decision of the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) dated 31.12.2013 and
communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 06.01.2014.
These communications are prayed to be set aside by this writ petition.
2. There was an earlier litigation between the parties to this case, and the
said earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 7885/2012 was disposed of in
terms of the order dated 23.07.2013 directing the Appointments Committee
of the Cabinet (ACC) to take a decision on the appointment/continuation of
the tenure of the petitioner to the post of Director (Marketing). This order
dated 23.07.2013 reads as under:-
"1. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks
extension of tenure as a Director (Marketing) of
respondent no.1/M.M.T.C. Ltd. There is no automatic
right of appointment and the right is only of consideration
of appointment in accordance with the relevant
guidelines/circulars/notifications.
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was denied
extension because of CVC advice which refers to the
censure order against the petitioner. Today, however, the
counsel for respondent no.2 has placed before me a letter
dated 22.7.2013 issued by the Ministry of Commerce &
Industry, Department of Commerce, alongwith which the
order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.7.2013 is
annexed, and which order states that the Disciplinary
Authority has decided to drop the charge and to close the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner- Sh. Sunir
Khurana, Director (Marketing) (now Ex-Director) of
respondent no.1/MMTC Ltd.
3. In view of the above, since the petitioner was not
considered for extension of tenure on the ground that
there was an order of the Disciplinary Authority against
the petitioner, and today however, the decision is that the
disciplinary proceedings have been dropped, petitioner
will be entitled to be considered as Director (Marketing),
of course, in accordance with the applicable
guidelines/circulars/notifications, and also keeping in
mind that it is employer's decision finally to decide as to
whether or not to give extension of tenure. I clarify that I
am not exercising any power of directing appointment
and which power only vests with the Cabinet Committee
of Appointments.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed
of with the direction that the appropriate authorities will
now act pursuant to the order of the Disciplinary
Authority dated 22.7.2013 whereby the charge against the
petitioner is dropped. Petitioner will now make a detailed
representation to the appropriate authorities within a
period of two weeks from today. On such representation
being made, the appropriate authorities will thereafter
within a period of two months, take appropriate decision
as to whether or not the petitioner's tenure has or has not
to be extended. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
All pending applications stand disposed of."
(underlining added)
3. A reading of para 3 of the aforesaid order shows that it clearly states
that it is the ACC which has to finally decide as to whether or not to give
extension of tenure, and that this Court was not exercising any powers with
respect to giving directions for appointment of the petitioner, and which
powers are to be exercised only by the ACC.
4. By para 4 of this order, this Court directed that the ACC should now
take a decision within a period of 2 months, as to whether or not the
petitioner's tenure has or has not to be extended i.e only that the petitioner's
case was to be considered.
5. Therefore, it is clear that this Court is not the employer and this Court
ordinarily does not decide as to whether or not to continue the employment
of petitioner with respondent no. 4. A decision of the ACC can be
challenged if the same is ex-facie in violation of any directions or circulars
or the guidelines which mandates that a particular person must be continued
at his post in a public sector undertaking. In the present case, the petitioner
has not even pleaded what are the reasons given by the ACC, and therefore,
there does not arise any issue of quashing of the reasons given for arriving at
the decision. In fact, the writ petition does not even state that petitioner has
asked for the reasons given by the ACC to be given to him, and in my
opinion, the averments made in para 15 of the writ petition which are sought
to be relied by the petitioner, do not in any manner show a pleading that
petitioner asked for the reasons given by the ACC to decline the extension of
the tenure, but that in spite of the asking, the reasons were not furnished to
him.
6. In view of the above, since the ACC has decided that the petitioner is
not to be given extension of tenure, and there is no challenge to the reasons
given by the ACC, and in fact the reasons of the ACC are not even with the
petitioner for challenging the same as arbitrary, accordingly, this Court
cannot interfere with the decision of the ACC which has decided not to
extend the tenure of the petitioner to the post of Director (Marketing) of the
respondent no.4-MMTC Limited.
7. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
APRIL 16, 2015
rs
