Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Motiram Ramchandani, a Commissioner (Appeals-I) in Customs & Central Excise, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, dated 30 June 2006. The petitioner had filed an Original Application (O.A.) seeking a direction that he be appointed as Member (Technical) in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) based on a recommendation made by a Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, comprising a sitting Supreme Court Judge, Secretary of Ministry of Law, and Secretary (Revenue), had recommended three names for the post, including the petitioner's name, along with a waitlist. The Cabinet Secretary forwarded the proposal to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (A.C.C.) in March 2005, which was considered in April 2005. The A.C.C. withheld the petitioner's appointment, and the respondents subsequently proposed deletion of his name. The petitioner challenged this action before the CAT, which dismissed his O.A. The High Court, in its oral judgment delivered by Justice F.I. Rebello, held that the recommendation of the Selection Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority. The Appointing Authority has the discretion to accept or reject the recommendation for valid reasons. The petitioner had no vested right to appointment merely because his name was recommended. The CAT had correctly dismissed the O.A. as it could not direct appointment but only consideration. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Selection Committee Recommendation - The recommendation of a Selection Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority; the Appointing Authority may accept or reject the recommendation for valid reasons. The petitioner had no vested right to appointment merely because his name was recommended. (Paras 1-3) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Tribunal's Jurisdiction - The Central Administrative Tribunal cannot direct appointment but can only direct the Appointing Authority to consider the recommendation. The Tribunal's order dismissing the O.A. was upheld. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has a right to be appointed as Member (Technical) in CESTAT based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, and whether the action of the respondents in proposing deletion of his name from the select list is illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court held that the recommendation of the Selection Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority and the petitioner had no vested right to appointment.
Law Points
- Recommendation of Selection Committee is not binding on the Appointing Authority
- No right to appointment arises from mere recommendation
- Tribunal's jurisdiction limited to directing consideration not appointment
