MADAN MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 23.4.2012 issued by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (in short 'the ACC'), in supersession of its earlier order dated 19.3.2012, whereunder he was appointed as a Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/Security Printing Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCIL) for a period of five years from the date of his assuming charge of the post or till his superannuation, and proceeding to approve the appointment of the respondent No.3 to the very same post.

(2.) Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, it is considered necessary to recapitulate the relevant facts of the case and some events that have transpired during the pendency of the present petition. The petitioner herein is an officer of the Indian Civil Accounts Service Group-"A" (1986 Batch). On 23.4.2007, he was appointed for a period of two years, as Director (Finance) on deputation basis with the respondent No.2/SPMCIL. The said term was extended by the ACC till 13.10.2011. The post of Director (Finance) is a Schedule-"A" post and the said Officer is a Member of the Board of Directors. Being the overall in-charge of finance and accounts functions of the organization, the petitioner was expected to directly report to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent No.2/SPMCIL. On 30.12.2010, the Public Enterprise Selection Board (PESB) advertised the post of Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/SPMCIL. On 21.2.2011, the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post through proper channel and was shortlisted by the PESB for an interview that was held on 18.4.2011. Thereafter, the PESB prepared a panel for appointment to the subject post, wherein the petitioner's name was placed at serial No.1 and that of the respondent No.3 was placed at serial No.2. There was no movement between May, 2011 to January, 2012 on account of some delay that took place for obtaining vigilance clearance in respect of the petitioner from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Finally, on 9.1.2012, the CVC advised issuance of vigilance clearance to the petitioner for the post of Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/SPMCIL.

(3.) Vide order dated 19.3.2012, the ACC approved the appointment of the petitioner as Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/SPMCIL. Though, a copy of the aforesaid order was forwarded for information to different departments, including the PMO, Office of the Home Minister, Cabinet Secretariat and the PESB, but the same was not communicated to the petitioner. In a sudden turn of events, the ACC decided to supersede its order dated 19.3.2012 and passed an order dated 23.4.2012, whereunder respondent No.3 was appointed as Director (Finance). This was followed by a communication dated 27.4.2012 addressed by the Ministry of Finance to the respondent No.3, conveying the approval of the ACC for his appointment to the post of Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/SPMCIL.