RAJESH SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A National Highways Tribunal has been established with the promulgation of the Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). This Tribunal has been established in eight cities, that is, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Calcutta, Mumbai, Jabalpur, Bangalore, Chennai and Guwahati. The Tribunal has jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals from orders passed or actions taken under Sections 26 to 28 and 36 to 38 by the Highway Administrations. Each of these Tribunals is to be manned by a Presiding Officer. The method of recruitment to the post of Presiding Officer is governed by the National Highways Tribunal (Procedure for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) Rules, 2003 (for short "the Rules"). A high powered selection committee has been constituted under the rules to be headed by an Hon'ble Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India as nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, to act as Chairman of the committee. The Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is a member of the Selection Committee together with the Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs). The High Powered Selection Committee makes recommendation to the Central Government and to accordingly make a list of persons selected as Presiding Officers to be valid for two years. It transpires that in the year 2005, 7 out of 8 posts were vacant. Application from intending eligible persons were invited through OM dated 9.8.2005. An advertisement was published and the posts were circulated through Registrars of different High Courts including this Court. 51 applications were received for filling up seven posts. The High Powered Selection Committee met. 19 candidates were interviewed on 20.12.2006, one of whom was the present petitioner. The committee finally recommended Mr. Chaudhary Satish Kishan at select position one and the petitioner below him. A reserve panel was also recommended with the name of Mr. Sanjeev Walia for appointment in future. Mr. Chaudhary Satish Kishan was appointed as Presiding Officer, National Highways Tribunal, Mumbai, on 6.9.2007. The petitioner awaited appointment. He asserts that he came to know of this appointment in June 2011 after making elaborate enquiries.

(2.) WITHOUT offering appointment to the petitioner despite selection by the High Powered Selection Committee, the Government of India issued fresh advertisement in the Press on 21.6.2007 for drawing up a fresh panel. Once again the selection committee met on 11.5.2008 for interviewing candidates. The petitioner was one of ten candidates interviewed. Fresh recommendations was made. The petitioner's name was recommended again. On 29.8.2008, the Government of India asked for the petitioner's consent for being appointed in any of the eight locations in the event appointment is offered. The petitioner gave his consent on 8.9.2008. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet of the Central Government considered the recommendations and four names were approved including that of the petitioner. This information, the petitioner says is based on information supplied to one Mr. Mohan Giri under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The order supplying information is at P -13. While the petitioner awaited appointment, to his surprise and disappointment, a fresh advertisement appeared in the press for drawing a fresh panel of seven names to be Presiding Officers vide letter dated 7.4.2011 (P -14). The petitioner came to know that Mr. Gyan Chandra had secured appointment as presiding Officer on 26.11.2009. Mr. Gyan Chandra was in the same select list as the petitioner and had been part of the same process till ACC. He learnt of this fact in June 2011. Left with little option the petitioner made a representation (P -15) to the Central Government bringing all facts to its notice and praying that he be appointed by issuing a notification. This representation was made on 11.7.2011. The representation against non appointment was rejected and the gist of the order was communicated vide letter dated 23.8.2011 which reads as follows:

(3.) IN this background, having waited and waited with no relief in sight, he has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the decision dated 7.4.2011 (P -14) proposing to draw a fresh panel should be quashed inasmuch as it inversely denies appointment to the petitioner to a post for which his name has been recommended by a Selection Committee headed by no less than an Hon'ble sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India.