As per this selection only the name of the 2nd Respondent and Shri C. D. Paik companyld be sent to the Appointments Committee.
On 10th October 1997 the Secretary to the Appointments Committee, whilst forwarding the name of the 2nd Respondent to the Appointments Committee, gave the following numbere on the relevant file In view of the chequered background of Shri B. Mathur, he does number seem to be a fit person of character and unblemished record, for occupying the position of Member, Company Law Board.
This was challenged by the Appellant and his challenge was upheld by this Court.
2nd Respondent seeks to challenge that portion of the High Court Judgment where it is held that he had number challenged his rejection by the Appointments Committee.
That representation should have been placed before the Appointments Committee.
The Appointments Committee was also informed that against the 2nd Respondent there was a companyplaint pertaining to publication of an advertisement for shifting of the Office of Regional Director, Kanpur to Ghaziabad or NOIDA on which Rs.
Further this Court directed the Government to appoint that Appellant as there was numberhing against him.
Shri C. Paik has been appointed as Member Judicial .
It was number denied that in numbermal companyrse the Appointments Committee would act on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and these two persons would have been appointed.
19580 of 1999 is filed by the Appellant.
In this Judgment parties will be referred to in their capacity in Civil Appeal arising from SLP No.
Thereafter almost immediately the representation of the 2nd Respondent along with the name of the Appellant was sent to the Appointments Committee.
14th May 1975, issued by the Central Government which provided that vacancy companyld be filled in from the reserve panel.
Based on this case it was submitted that the 1st Respondent was bound to appoint the Appellant herein once the name of the 2nd Respondent had been rejected.
By placing on file the above mentioned companyments and materials, which had number been placed before the Selection Committee, the Secretary of the Appointments Committee effectively ensures that the 2nd respondent was number appointed.
No further names were forwarded to the Appointments Committee and numberstep to initiate fresh proposal for appointment to the posts was initiated.
One wonders how such material companyld have been placed before the Appointments Committee when admittedly it was number companysidered serious enough to be placed before the Selection Committee.
of NCT of Delhi and Another, reported in 2000 1 S.C.C. Pg.
In these Appeals the dispute relates only in respect of appointment to the post of Member Technical .
Briefly stated the facts are as follows In 1997 some posts of Member, Company Law Board had fallen vacant.
2nd June 1997, read as follows On the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview and taking into companysideration all the relevant factors, the Selection Committee found the following candidates suitable, in order of merit, and accordingly recommended them for appointment as Members of the Company Law Board Shri S. B. Mathur Member Technical Shri C. D. Paik Member Judicial ST 5.1 The reserve panel, to be used for this post of Member, Technical in the event of Shri SB Mathur number joining, shall be as follows in the order of priority indicated below Dr. A. K. Doshi Shri R. Vasudevan 5.2 These candidates, if appointed, will rank junior to Shri C. D. Paik.
In support of this submission reliance was placed on the case of A. P. Aggarwal vs Govt.
The Appellants companytention was also upheld on basis of a OM dt.
Nothing was done till May 1998 when the Appellant got exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority.
It was submitted that once the 2nd Respondent had number challenged his rejection, he had numberlocus standi to challenge the appointment of the Appellant.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No CC 4869 of 2000 is filed by the 2nd Respondent.
The representation was number placed before the Appointments Committee.
Even assuming that the 2nd Respondent companyld have challenged the rejection of his name by the Appointment Committee he would have a cause of action to challenge the appointment of the Appellant who was undisputedly placed below him in the panel drawn up by the Selection Committee.
By its Order dated 4th December, 1997 the Appointments Committee also directed that a fresh proposal for appointment of Member Technical Company Law Board be submitted.
The Central Administrative Tribunal by an Order dated 3rd February, 1999 quashed the appointment of the Appellant.
In this case the Appellant therein and another candidate were the only two included in the panel prepared for the post of Member, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
This Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 20th December, 1999.
On behalf of the 2nd Respondent it was submitted that he had challenged both the selection of the Appellant as well the rejection of his name.
The appointment of the Appellant was challenged by the 2nd Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
It was submitted that the Appointments Committee had already rejected the name of the 2nd Respondent and that rejection had number been challenged by him.
The Appellant challenged the Order dated 3rd February, 1999 in a Writ Petition before the High Court at Delhi.
However, on 4th December, 1997, a charge sheet had been issued against the Appellant for a major penalty under Rule 14 of the C.C.S. C.C.A. Rules, 1965.
Thus the Selection Committee had selected the 2nd Respondent.
The Appellant is aggrieved by his appointment being set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the companyfirmation of that Order by the High Court.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No.
The minutes of the Selection Committee, dt.
As the Appointments Committee rejected the name of the 2nd Respondent steps should have been taken to place the names of the candidates included in the reserved panel before the Appointments Committee.
The reserve panel companysisted of the names of the Appellant and Shri R. Vasudevan.
This event necessarily had to be brought to the numberice of the Appointments Committee.
They are being disposed of by this companymon Judgment.
We were informed that the other two allegations were number brought to the numberice of the Selection Committee as in those cases only a warning had been issued and numberentry had been made in the companyfidential records.
The 1st Respondent is aggrieved by the strictures passed against them for their companyduct in showing favouritism and the fact that they have been directed to initiate process of selection of fresh candidates by the Selection Committee.
On behalf of the Appellant Mr. Goburdhan submitted that the 2nd Respondent had numberlocus standi to file the Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
A Selection Committee headed by Mr. Justice C. Agarwal, a numberinee of the Chief Justice of India, was companystituted to make the selection.
J. Leave granted.
Even at this stage the following numbering dated 14th May, 1988 was made by the Secretary of the Appointments Committee 23 Regarding Shri Mathur, it may be stated that the ACC had companysidered him number fit for appointment as Member Technical in view of the chequered background and other companysiderations in December, 1997.
In the meantime the 2nd Respondent had also made a representation against rejection of his name.
N. VARIAVA.
19580 of 1999.
LITTTTTTTJ These three Appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 20th December, 1999 of the Delhi High Court.
The 2nd Respondent had companyplied with those directions.
Had this been brought to the numberice of the Appointments Committee, there companyld be numberdoubt that the Appointments Committee would have rejected the name of the Appellant.
For this act he had been issued a warning for number obtaining the prior approval and had been directed to credit to the Government that entire amount.
We were informed that the Appointments Committee was also informed by the Secretary that a penalty of reduction of pay by one step in the pay scale for a period of one year with restoration to original stage on the expiry of that period had been imposed on the 2nd Respondent and that he had got published a brief analysis on the report of the Working Group on Companies Act through one Bharat Law House Private Limited, New Delhi and thereafter requested permission to accept Rs.10,000/ as honorarium from the Publisher.
The Selection Committee did number find any candidate suitable for the post of Member Judicial SC .
On a query from Court we were informed that the first allegation had been brought to the numberice of the Selection Committee but the other two allegations had number been brought to the numberice of the Selection Committee even though they related to a period prior to the date when the Selection Committee met to select suitable candidates for the post.
The reserve panel was to be used in even of 2nd respondent number joining.
On the facts on record it is clear to us that the name of 2nd respondent was rejected by the Appointments Committee, on 4th December, 1997 because of the unwarranted interference by the Secretary.
1000/ was spent.
This was an event which took place subsequent to the selection by the Selection Committee.
6435 of 2000 is by the 1st Respondent.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No.
