Delhi High Court
Tapan Kumar Deo vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 02, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7050/2017 & C.M.29264/2017
TAPAN KUMAR DEO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Achintya Dvivedi &
Mr. B.P.Pandey, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor
General with Mr. Akshay Makhija,
CGSC, Ms. Vidhu Mohan, Mr. Aditya
Goyal, Mr. Seerat Deep Singh &
Ms.Sneh Suman, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 7053/2017 & C.M. 29268/2017
PRATAP SINGH AHLUWALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vivek Sood, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Prachi Gupta, Mr.Manu Mridul &
Ms.Spandana Gunda, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor
General with Mr. Akshay Makhija,
CGSC, Ms. Vidhu Mohan, Mr. Aditya
Goyal, Mr. Seerat Deep Singh &
Ms.Sneh Suman, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of two separate
Office Memorandums (O.Ms.) of 8th August, 2017 is sought, as vide
impugned O.Ms., Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has
declined the proposal to appoint petitioners- Tapan Kumar Deo and
Pratap Singh Ahluwalia in Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) in
Aurangabad and Jaipur.
2. Since challenge to the impugned O.Ms. in these petitions is on
identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the proposal to appoint
petitioners as Presiding Officers of DRT in Aurangabad and Jaipur was
duly made by the Selection Committee headed by a sitting Supreme
Court Judge and the said proposal has been arbitrarily declined vide
impugned O.Ms. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in
Major General H.M. Singh, VSM to Union Of India & Anr.(2014) 3 SCC
670 and a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Alag Vs.
Union of India & Anr. 221 (2015) DLT 199 (DB) to submit that the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as
'ACC') did not record any reason to negate the merit and suitability of
Major General H.M. Singh, though he was duly recommended by the
Selection Board and decision of ACC was set aside. It is submitted that
the impugned O.Ms. deserve to be quashed, as these O.Ms. are bereft of
any reason.
4. On the contrary learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
respondents relies upon a three Judge Bench decision of Supreme Court
in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.P. Dhamania & Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SCC
1 to submit that the recommendation of Selection Committee is of
advisory nature and is not binding upon the Appointing Authority and
that it is open to the Appointing Authority to differ with the
recommendation of the Selection Board in public interest and that there is
no need to communicate reasons to the officer concerned.
5. The record of ACC in a sealed cover has been produced for perusal
of this Court, for passing appropriate orders in these petitions. The sealed
cover is opened and file regarding appointment of Presiding Officers in
DRT is perused and thereupon, it becomes apparent that the Selection
Committee, after interviewing the candidates, had recommended the
names of candidates (including petitioners) for the post of Presiding
Officers of DRT on 30th March, 2016 and the said recommendation was
placed before the ACC on 1st February, 2017 and the case of petitioners
was deferred while calling for a fresh report from Intelligence Bureau. It
becomes apparent on perusal of the file produced that case of petitioners
was resubmitted along with fresh IB Report but ACC on 1st August, 2017,
after perusal of IB Report, has declined the proposal for appointment of
petitioners as Presiding Officers of DRT in Aurangabad and Jaipur. After
perusal of the file, it has been put in a sealed cover and returned to
learned Additional Solicitor General.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of file produced and decisions cited, I
find that Supreme Court in N.P. Dhamania (Supra) has emphatically
declared that it is open to the Appointing Authority to differ with the
recommendations made by the Selection Board, as the recommendation is
advisory in nature and is not binding upon the Appointing Authority and
there is no need for ACC to communicate the reasons for not making
appointments. The aforesaid legal position has been noticed by Supreme
Court in its later decision in Major General H.M. Singh (Supra) but in the
facts of the said case, Supreme Court has ruled that ACC ought to have
considered the recommendation on merit and suitability of the candidate.
A Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Alag (Supra) has dwelt upon the
aspect of overturning of expert opinion by bureaucratic input and decision
of not to promote candidate as Scientist, was quashed. Supreme Court's
decisions in Major General H.M. Singh (Supra) and decision of a
Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Alag (Supra) are of no assistance to
the case of petitioners, as it is not the question of merit or suitability but is
of a vital importance of an adverse report from Intelligence Bureau.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders of
declining to appoint petitioners as Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery
Tribunals appears to be well justified in the light of fresh report from
Intelligence Bureau.
8. In view of aforesaid, finding no substance in these petitions, they
are dismissed. Pending applications are also dismissed as infructuous.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 02, 2018
r
