The matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court companyprising Ashok Bhan, J. as His Lordship then was and Chidananda Ullal, J. The learned Judges differed in their opinion while delivering an order dated 8.2.2001.
The first respondent herein was a member of the Indian Police Service IPS of 1963 batch.
The first respondent herein also filed a writ petition questioning some findings arrived at by the Tribunal which was marked as Writ Petition No.6361 of 2001.
The said stand was taken purported to be relying on or on the basis of doctrine of sub silentio, to which this Court in Vineet Narain supra apparently did number advert.
5765 of 2001.
The Committee companystituted for the aforementioned purpose was required to draw a panel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority, integrity and experience in investigation and anti corruption work.
Out of the remaining 16 officers, a panel of three names was prepared by the Committee.
The name of the first respondent herein was admittedly number included in the panel prepared by the appellant herein for the purpose of companysideration of his case for promotion to the post of Director, CBI.
Whereas Bhan, J. held that the appointment of the 6th Respondent herein as Director of CBI was in accordance with the rules and the directions issued by this Court as also Official Memorandum dated 20.5.1998 Ullal, J. held companytra.
The judgment and order of the Tribunal came to be questioned by the appellant herein by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No.
The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the first respondent herein quashing the appointment of the seventh respondent and directing initiation of a fresh process of selection in the light of the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain supra , holding that statutory rules or executive instructions pertaining to the post of Director, CBI companyld number be resorted therefor.
The first respondent questioned the selection process adopted by the Central Government as regard empanelment of the so called eligible officers, inter alia, on the ground that the same was companytrary to and inconsistent with the directions of this Court in Vineet Narains case supra .
The panel of IPS officers which was placed before the Committee for its companysideration companysisted names of 33 IPS officers, out of which 17 officers did number have the requisite background or experience in anti corruption activities.
The question which, inter alia, arose for companysideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal was as to whether directions issued by this Court in Vineet Narain supra were required to be companyplied with rigidly till such time, the legislature steps in and substitutes the same by an appropriate legislation.
Questioning the said appointment as also the procedure adopted by the Committee being violative of the directions of this Court for appointment of Director, CBI in Vineet Narain and Others vs. Union of India Another 1998 1 SCC 226, the first respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal.
Final selection, however, was to be made by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet ACC from the panel recommended by the Committee.
The stand of the Central Government, however, was that such a procedure was supplemental to the directions of this Court which had already been in existence for appointment to the post of Director of CBI as on the date of the judgment thereof, namely, 18.12.1997.
N. KHARE, CJI Union of India herein is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11.10.2001 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.5765 of 2001 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No.1020 of 1999.
He although was said to be one of the senior most officers for the purpose of companysideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation CBI , ignoring his case, Shri R.K. Raghavan, Respondent No.6 herein was appointed therein.
