TAPAN KUMAR DEO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of two separate Office Memorandums (O.Ms.) of 8th August, 2017 is sought, as vide impugned O.Ms., Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has declined the proposal to appoint petitioners- Tapan Kumar Deo and Pratap Singh Ahluwalia in Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) in Aurangabad and Jaipur.

(2.) Since challenge to the impugned O.Ms. in these petitions is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the proposal to appoint petitioners as Presiding Officers of DRT in Aurangabad and Jaipur was duly made by the Selection Committee headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge and the said proposal has been arbitrarily declined vide impugned O.Ms. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Major General H.M. Singh, VSM to Union Of India & Anr., (2014) 3 SCC 670 and a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Alag Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 221 DLT 199 (DB) to submit that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as 'ACC') did not record any reason to negate the merit and suitability of Major General H.M. Singh, though he was duly recommended by the Selection Board and decision of ACC was set aside. It is submitted that the impugned O.Ms. deserve to be quashed, as these O.Ms. are bereft of any reason.