| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | R. K. Agrawal J, Ranjan Gogoi J |
| SECTION(S): | - |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | Appointment, ITAT Member |
| COUNSEL: | Nidhesh Gupta |
| DATE: | September 23, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | October 8, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| As the UOI has continued the process of appointment of Tribunal Members without amending the Rules, the Petitioner, who was wait-listed in 2007, deserves to be considered for appointment within 30 days | |
The Selection Committee finalized a list of 18 persons, 13 for the post of Accountant Member and 5 for the post of Judicial Member. The Petitioner, Inturi Rama Rao, was placed in a ‘Waiting List’ appointment as Accountant Member. The Select List was approved by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and 11 vacancies of Accountant Members were filled up whereas 5 vacancies of Judicial Members were also filled up. Two vacancies of Accountant Members remained vacant as the two candidates who were selected were not cleared by the Vigilance. The Petitioner, who was in the Waiting List, perceived a right to be appointed against one of the vacant posts of Accountant Member. As appointment was not forthcoming, the Petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. Appropriate relief was granted by the CAT. The order of the CAT was affirmed by the Delhi High Court. However, the appeals filed by the UOI against the said order of the CAT and High Court were allowed by the Supreme Court on the ground that there was a difference between the main list of selected candidates and the wait-listed candidates. As appointments of the candidates in the main list (16 in number) had already been made, the Supreme Court thought it proper not to affirm the directions for appointment of the wait-listed candidates as made by the CAT and the High Court. It accepted the contentions made by the UOI that further appointments would be made only after amendment of the Rules pertained to the eligibility of the candidates. However, as the amendment to the Rules has not been effected till date and instead, the UOI initiated fresh selection process in the year 2013 on the basis of the unamended Rules and the selection process was completed and the appointments are awaited, the Petitioner filed a fresh Writ Petition. HELD by the Court allowing the Petition:
What we find is that notwithstanding the statement made on behalf of the Union of India before this Court that vacancies in the future will be made only after the amendments in the Rules are carried out, the Union of India has initiated a process to make further appointments without amending the Rules. If persons eligible under the then existing Rules which are in force even today are to be considered for appointment, surely, the petitioner, who is a wait-listed candidate, will also have to be considered for appointment by consideration of his entitlement for appointment as in the year 2007 when the appointments on the main-list were made and the two vacancies arose giving rise to the issue of operation of the waiting list. What follows from the above is that even accepting the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by this Court, in view of the subsequent facts and events that have occurred, namely, action of the Union of India in resorting to a fresh process of selection and appointment without amendment of the Rules, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the basis of his position in the Waiting List has once again come to fore which needs to be resolved by an appropriate order. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of his position in the Waiting List against one of the two vacancies that had arisen on account of two of the candidates in the merit list not having been granted the vigilance clearance. This will be done by the concerned Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The following observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court comes as a bit of surprise to everyone:
“It is an admitted fact that amendment to the Rules as contemplated and stated before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6567-6569 of 2010 has not been effected till date.Rather it is not in dispute that a fresh selection process has been initiated in the year 2013 on the basis of the unamended Rules and the selection process has been completed and the appointments are awaited”
I think appointment process in 2013 is totally illegal and invalid without amending the rules as assurance given to SC and could be challanged via writ
and……
“what we find is that notwithstanding the statement made on behalf of the Union of India before this Court that vacancies in the future will be made only after the amendments in the Rules are carried out, the Union of India has initiated a process to make further appointments without amending the Rules “
ATLAST JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE BY SUPREME COURT
It is admitted fact that UOI contentions and assurance before the honable SC that further appointments would be made only after amendment of the Rules pertained to the eligibility of the candidates but failed to do so. Whether the new process of appointment in 2013 is invalid and illegal liable to be cancelled or challanged before the SC
DOPT will have to decide whether they would like to deal with this controversy or would be happy without having any need to deal with this controversy. One will have to check whether the DOPT clearance has been granted by now or not. There was perhaps a policy decision not to make further recruitment till the issue regarding five year fixed term is decided, because, under the proposed law which is already cleared by the Cabinet, the retirement age for all the Tribunals is required to be uniform. A uniform retirement age and different tenures of appointment cannot will not work but there may be some other facts also. All these things are factual things, a few facts may not be in public knowledge and an ill informed debate cannot help anyone. The Government must have considered all these things properly. Donot try to prejudge everything.
Good judgement. this shows union of india is not appearing to be some functional body under Art 12 but some kind of body like a dead body!
What do we mean by people? Are they not living beings with some aspirations?
Today even disabled need to be considered for any work suitable. What so we mean by Human Rights? Just by signing india cannot say it really implementing Human Rights;
Human rights means every human being is a dignified person and his dignity need to be protected by the very governments if not how we can expect from fellow humans?
Gear up immediately the so called Union of india. Else it would be called Union of Lazy humans as Ministers in place so also parliament members, too!
A sympathetic view is also reqd for SRI P K KEDIA who lost the case on 17/11/2011.The matters being same and of same batch
Landmark Judgment, would be more of a support in these private companies’ unjustified retrenchments. Need some of these to make a better situation for Freshers and Interns
It is really not a good news for candidates who have been selected but not appointed till now! What is the new course of action now by UOI
Why do you conduct farce selections Finance ministry, had i been a justice on the bench i would have made the complete bench to impose exemplary penalty on government as yo took the candidates for granted that is a fraud under sec 17 of contract Act,1872 as it is a some kind of contract between the govt as selection authority and the candidates who accepted the terms of contract of employment you as government would act upon but government caused a serious breach of contract that was least expected of a governments governance machinery, what it reflects on government, that government tries to play fraud on victims who came for selection;
in such a situation the bench should have imposed on government to pay the total contract period remuneration to the victim the government deliberately played havoc on the candidate selected, that would be the right remedy besides fine for the government failed to utilise the skill of the individual as that individual was supposed to have done the duty to serve the community that service the govt deliberately failed shows the government played fraud on the citizens of india.
IN THIS CASE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF THE PETITIONER WAS JETTISONED BY THE GOVERNMENT THOUGH IT ASSURED HER BY SELECTING THE SAID OFFICER AS A MEMBER AS THE OFFICER HAS A LOCUS STANDI IN THE MATTER.
SO GOVT UNILATERAL ACTION INORDINATELY DELAYING IS INDEED ARBITRARY FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE! therefore GOVERNMENT NEED TO BE PULLED UP THAT IS WHAT THE JUDGEMENT IS THAT GOVT CANNOT GO BACK ON ITS OWN SELECTION IS THE ESSENCE OF THE JUDGEMENT.
sir,
lot of time has lapsed since new panel for appointment of ITAT was formed last year but still no information is forthcoming. Anybody having any info in the matter? Please share