UTTAM BIR SINGH BEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent/Mr. P. Mohanarajan as Vice President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT in short) in these writ proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that the high level Selection Committee has been misguided by the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs in short) of all the eligible candidates placed before it. According to the petitioner, the third respondent/President of the ITAT has no right or authority to write Annual Confidential Reports of the Members and the first respondent cannot act like a reviewing authority. The petitioner, without prejudice to the above contention, would further contend that the ACRs were not liable to be taken into account, unless they had been communicated to the concerned officers, their representations obtained and considered by the competent authority, in terms of the judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, 2008 AIR(SC) 2513 According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is junior to him and only based on the incorrect and incomplete information furnished by the official respondents, in the sense the damaging observations made by the Honorable Apex Court against the fourth respondent in Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs. Union of India, 2006 6 SCC 613 W.P. (Crl.) No. 197-198 of 2004, dated 21.8.2006 reported in were not placed before the Selection Committee, the Selection Committee proceeded to make its recommendations and the first respondent proceeded to appoint the fourth respondent as Vice President, in supersession of the petitioner.

(3.) It is also the contention of the petitioner that the post of Vice President ceased to be a promotion/selection post in view of the upgradation of the post of Members to the level of Vice President w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and consequential merger of the pay scales of both the posts. On such and other grounds, the petitioner has filed Original Application No.1001 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.