RAM KISHORE PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Practising Advocate, was a candidate for selection to the post of a Judicial Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was included in the select list. After the Committee constituted in that behalf made its recommendations, the entire proceedings were placed before the Chief Justice of India. It may be noticed that when the Committee made its recommendations, the Committee did not have the confidential report on the Vigilance enquiries made regarding the petitioner. But, before the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India, the report was made available. It was brought to the notice of the Chief Justice that from the report regarding the character and antecedents etc. of the 14 persons included in the list and in the waiting list, it was found that the petitioner who was ranked No. 6, and another who was ranked No. 1 were found to be unsuitable and the proposal was made that they be replaced by Nos. 1 and 2 in the waiting list. The report of the Intelligence Bureau was also enclosed. The Chief Justice of India concurred with the proposal made by the appointing authority, the Central Government. In other words, the Chief Justice of India also agreed that the decision not to appoint the petitioner herein in the light of the report of the Intelligence Bureau relied on by the appointing authority was justified. Thus, the petitioner was not appointed as a member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by his not being appointed to one of the seven vacancies, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief. That Tribunal took the view that the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner was not within the purview of the Tribunal and that the remedy of the petitioner, if any, lay elsewhere. It is in that context that the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court on 2.7.2003. We may notice that the seven appointments were notified by the Central Government on 14.1.2002 and those appointees have filled all the seven vacancies for which the selection was made. The petitioner has claimed that he also ought to have been appointed to one of those seven vacancies already filled up.

(3.) MERELY by being included in the select list by the Committee constituted in that behalf, the petitioner does not get a right to be appointed. His antecedents are required to be verified since he was being appointed to a judicial post in a body, like the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appointing authority not only had the right, but also the duty to verify his antecedents. Based on the report that they may receive, it is open to the appointing authority not to appoint a person who has been included in the select list prepared by the Committee constituted in that behalf. In the case on hand, the action of the appointing authority in excluding the petitioner based on, the intelligence report has been concurred in by the Chief Justice of India who was apprised of the entire position as can be seen from the submissions made to him by the Government of India and the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, both produced along with the supplementary affidavit. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Central Government after obtaining the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India after apprising him of all the relevant facts.