V.P. GULATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (BY DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI), AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 7189 of 1985 filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent herein in F.No. A22012/20/84. Ad. II (TRIB) dated 27-6-1985, cancelling its earlier order in F.No. 22012/20/84/Ad. II (TRIB) dated 23-4-1985, appointing the appellant as Technical Member of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CEGAT").

(2.) The appellant joined the Customs and Central Excise Service--Group 'A' in July, 1963 and after successfully completing a probation period of two years, worked as Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, till about Dec., 1973. He was thereafter promoted as Deputy Collector and with effect from, Feb., 1982, he functioned as Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras., From the middle of June, 1983, the appellant worked as Collector of Customs (Appeals), which post he held till 28-6-1985. Some time in the middle of April, 1984, the appellant was asked if he was willing for being considered for appointment as Technical Member in the CEGAT and by letter dated 7-5-1984, the appellant signified his willingness. Thereupon, the appellant was interviewed by a Selection Committee, headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and consisting of the President of the Tribunal and three other Secretaries to Government of India, on 28-6-1984. By communication F.No.A. 22012/20/84-Ad. II (TRIB) dated 29-8-1984, the appellant was offered the appointment as Technical Member of CEGAT on the following terms and conditions:

(3.) The appellant, in his writ petition, challenged the cancellation of his appointment on the ground that a concluded contract of appointment had come into existence on his acceptance of the offer made by the first respondent for appointing him as Technical Member, CEGAT, which cannot be cancelled unilaterally or arbitrarily and that no removal from service by cancellation of the appointment order can be made, without complying with the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The cancellation was also characterised as arbitrary and as one opposed to the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with law.