Case: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR

with Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules. The High Court found fault with the decision of the ACC as it was contrary to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the ACC to take a decision afresh for the grant of extension of the respondents term of appointment as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the High Court committed an error in holding that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for carrying forward the vacancies to the next year i.e. 2017, stood set aside by the judgment of the High Court dated 08.05.2019. According to learned ASG, after the recommendation was made by the Selection Committee to the competent authority, the additional material which came to the notice of the authorities was placed before the Selection Committee. Pursuant thereto, the Selection Committee decided that the vacancies which were to be filled up by the appointment of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj should be carried forward to the next year i.e. 2017. The said recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the Chief Justice of India. It was further argued by Mr. Jain that the High Court, by a judgment dated 08.05.2019, only directed the competent authority to pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules. It was contended on behalf of the appellants, that a suitable order in terms of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India was passed. 8. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, stated that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee to extend the tenure of the respondent has to be complied with by the competent authority. However, the competent authority taking into account certain inputs given by DoPT referred the request of the respondent for extension of term of appointment to the Selection Committee. The request that was made by ACC to the Selection Committee relates only to carrying forward the vacancies of 2016 to the next year which was approved by the Selection Committee. The said approval does not amount to rejection of the respondents request for extension of his tenure for another term. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the judgement of the High Court dated 08.05.2019, set aside the proceedings dated 06.03.2017 by which the ACC had returned the proposal for extension of term of appointment of the respondent and the letter dated 12.04.2017 by which the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal was informed about the rejection of extension of tenure of the respondent was also set aside. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment by arguing that the High Court, in its judgement dated 08.05.2019, had already considered the complaints that were made against the respondent which was the basis for the rejection of the respondents request for extension of his term. The High Court, in its judgment dated 08.05.2019, observed that there was nothing adverse against the respondent on the basis of which the request for extension could be rejected. 9. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Initially, the Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of this Court recommended the extension of the respondent as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal for another term. The said recommendation was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, additional material surfaced which was placed before the Selection Committee by the Competent Authority for seeking review of the earlier decision. We have carefully examined the original record. It is clear from the record that the Selection Committee recorded that the ACC had returned the proposal for extension of the tenure of the respondent after taking a decision not to fill up the vacancies by extending the term of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj. It was recommended by the Selection Committee to carry forward the said vacancies to the year 2017. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the contention of the respondent that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the 2016 vacancies to year 2017 does not amount to rejection of the request of the respondent for extension of his term as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. There cannot be any manner of doubt that a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee not to recommend the extension of tenure of the respondent. The decision taken by the Selection Committee was duly approved by the Chief Justice of India. 10. The High Court committed an error in holding that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the vacancies to year 2017 was set aside by the High Court, in its earlier order dated 08.05.2019. The reason given for such conclusion is that the letter dated 12.04.2017 by which DoPT informed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the said vacancies of 2016 will be filled up along with the vacancies for the year 2017 was set aside. A close scrutiny of the judgment dated 08.05.2019 would show that the direction of the High Court was that the ACC should pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules pursuant to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Chief Justice of India. Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2017 cannot be understood as the recommendation of the Selection Committee being set aside. 11. The ACC did not take any decision contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 08.05.2019, the order passed on 11.10.2019 by the ACC is neither contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee nor in violation of the directions issued by the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Initially, the Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of this Court recommended the extension of the respondent as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal for another term. The said recommendation was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, additional material surfaced which was placed before the Selection Committee by the Competent Authority for seeking review of the earlier decision. We have carefully examined the original record. It is clear from the record that the Selection Committee recorded that the ACC had returned the proposal for extension of the tenure of the respondent after taking a decision not to fill up the vacancies by extending the term of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj. It was recommended by the Selection Committee to carry forward the said vacancies to the year 2017. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the contention of the respondent that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the 2016 vacancies to year 2017 does not amount to rejection of the request of the respondent for extension of his term as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. There cannot be any manner of doubt that a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee not to recommend the extension of tenure of the respondent. The decision taken by the Selection Committee was duly approved by the Chief Justice of India.10. The High Court committed an error in holding that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the vacancies to year 2017 was set aside by the High Court, in its earlier order dated 08.05.2019. The reason given for such conclusion is that the letter dated 12.04.2017 by which DoPT informed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the said vacancies of 2016 will be filled up along with the vacancies for the year 2017 was set aside. A close scrutiny of the judgment dated 08.05.2019 would show that the direction of the High Court was that the ACC should pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules pursuant to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Chief Justice of India. Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2017 cannot be understood as the recommendation of the Selection Committee being set aside.11. The ACC did not take any decision contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 08.05.2019, the order passed on 11.10.2019 by the ACC is neither contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee nor in violation of the directions issued by the High Court.