ANAND DARHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB

(2.) By means of the instant Letter's Patent Appeal the appellant challenges the order of the learned single Judge dated January 27, 2000 whereby the prayer of the appellant for directing the Appointments Committee of Cabinet ( for Short 'ACC") to reconsider the decision refusing to extend the tenure of the appellant as Chairman-cum- Managing Director of Clement Corporation of India beyond January 1, 1999 till March 31, 2001, was declined.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. It is admilled on both sides that initially the appellant was appointed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Cement Corporation of India on January 2, 1989 for a period of 5 years. Thereafter he was granted two extensions. The Public Enterprises Selection Board (for short 'the PESB') recommended the case of the appellant for extension beyond January 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001 on the ground that BIFR had finalised a rehabilitation package for Cement Corporation of India and the implementation of the BIFR package within a specified time frame requires commitment to the package. It is note worthy that the ACC considered the recommendations of the PESB but did not accept the same since no rehabilitation package was under implementation and' that there was a sharp down turn in the production and the profitability of the company during the tenure of the appellant as its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. That apart the appellant had not been able to over come the difficulties and challenges before the Cement Corporation of India and to lead the Corporation effectively for an improved performance.