2 to 10, if the Cabinet Secretary with the assistance rendered to him by the Special companymittee of the Secretaries did number find the respondent suitable for inclusion in the panel and found respondents Nos.2 to 10 suitable for such inclusion, it is number possible to infer legal mala fides if the case of the respondent had been properly companysidered.
The Tribunal held that the principal Secretary to the prime Minister appointed by the Government of India is also a Secretary discharging governmental functions and there is numberhing in the Central Staffing Scheme to show that a serving Secretary alone can function as a member of the special companymittee.
None of these companytentions found favour with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has further found that though respondent has alleged in his application that the proceedings were vitiated by mala fides, it has number been stated anywhere in the application that any one of the members of the Committee of the Special Secretaries or the Cabinet secretary or the Appointments companymittee of the Cabinet has any special reason to be prejudiced against him and that the allegation that some of the officers who had companypleted the tenure of their deputation were allowed to companytinue as Additional secretaries and have been appointed as secretaries to the Government of India on the basis of the panel does number amount to an allegation of mala fides since allowing any officer to companytinue beyond the period of tenure of deputation has numberhing to do with the process of selection and empanelment.
As far as possible, panels of suitable officers will be drawn up on an annual basis companysidering all officers of a particular year of allotment from one service together as a group.
Paragraph 14 of the said Scheme relates to the posts of Additional secretary Special Secretary Secretary and reads as under Selection for inclusion on the panel of officers adjudged suitable for appointment to the posts of Additional Secretary or Special secretary Secretary to the Government of India and Posts equivalent thereto, will be approved by the ACC on the basis of proposals submitted by the Cabinet Secretary.
The Tribunal was of the view that since there is numberreason to assume that the preparation of the panel by the Cabinet Secretary assisted by the Committee of Special secretaries was number done properly, it companyld number accede to the prayer of the respondent to call for records of proceedings and the ACRs of the respondent as also of the officers who have been selected and empanelled and to make a companyparative evaluation of merits.
The Central staffing Scheme, as companytained in the Office Memorandum dated July 15, 1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel Training , prescribes the procedure for selection for appointment of officers to Secretarial posts of and above the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India and to certain important numbersecretarial posts.
In 1993 a Special Committee companysisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Principal Secretary to the prime Minister and the Home Secretary prepared a panel of I.A.S. officers of 1962 batch for appointment as Secretaries to the Government of India or equivalent post.
The said panel was companysidered by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for shortACC of the Government of India and appointments were made on the posts of Secretaries in March 1993.
The respondent was number empanelled and hence he was number appointed as Secretary.
Respondent No.
The Tribunal also held that under the Central Staffing Scheme appointment to the posts of Additional secretary Special Secretary and Secretary to the Government of India and equivalent post are filled on deputation basis on companysideration of the various factors mentioned in the said Scheme and such appointment is number by way of promotion but by way of appointment after strict selection and evaluation of such qualifications as merit, companypetence, leadership and flair for participation in the policy making process and that the paramount companysideration in making the selection is the need of the Central Government and that it is incorrect to say that the seniority must be the determining factor for empanelment and appointment to the post of Secretary to the Government of India.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent is a member of the Indian Administrative Service I.A.S. belonging to 1962 batch.
In February 1990 he was promoted as Additional Secretary.
Feeling aggrieved by the said numberconclusion in the panel, he filed a petition O.A. No.
In this task, the Cabinet Secretary may be assisted by a Special Committee of Secretaries for drawing up proposals for the companysideration of ACC.
It relates to empanelment and appointment on the post of Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent post.
The tribunal has observed that even if the respondent had excellent service record throughout his career and even though he is senior to respondents Nos.
C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.
Before the Tribunal the respondent assailed his number selection on the following grounds the Special companymittee has number been companystituted in accordance with the provisions companytained in the Central Staffing Scheme inasmuch as one of the members, namely, Shri A.N. Varma, Principal Secretary to the prime Minister, being a retired secretary to the Government of India, companyld number be legally appointed as members of the Committee the selection made by the Special Committee is vitiated because officers junior to respondent have been empanelled overlooking the seniority and merit of the respondent and as the respondent had been empanelled and appointed as Additional secretary the number inclusion of the respondent in the panel amounts to a companyourable exercise of power and was a result of taking into companysideration matters which are extraneous and the selection is vitiated by legal mala fides.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
