Case Law Details
India Awake For Transparency Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Assessment of qualifications, experience, etc. as eligibility conditions of a candidate was purely the domain of the Executive and the Selection Committees. Assessee had been unable to make out a case, which would lead to a conclusion that the Authority of NCLAT Technical Member did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for cancelling Company’s License for deliberately concealing crucial facts.
Held: Assessee had sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing Respondent to set out the Authority under which the said Respondent was holding office as Technical Member of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). It was held that a search-cum-selection committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to make recommendations for appointment against the posts of 04 Technical and 03 Judicial Members in NCLAT, pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.05.2019. The search-cum-selection committee had examined the eligibility conditions as well as the merits of the candidates and recommended the panel. There was no allegation of bias or malafides against the Selection Committee. It was a settled law that it was the domain of the Selection Committees to make selections and the Courts, while sitting in a judicial review, could not substitute the decision of the Selection Committees, which were expert bodies unless there were allegations of bias or malafides or there was a challenge to the composition of the Committee, which was admittedly not the case here. Assessee had itself averred in the writ petition that Respondent had been serving as a Judicial Member of the District and State Consumer Forums and had been a Judicial Member of the NCRDC since 2015. Assessment of qualifications, experience, etc. as eligibility conditions of a candidate was purely the domain of the Executive and the Selection Committees. Assessee had been unable to make out a case, which would lead to a conclusion that Respondent did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for selection. It needed no emphasis that the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee were duly approved by none other than the Appointments Committee of Cabinet and needless to state, there were no allegations of bias or malafides against any Member of the ACC. Therefore, no grounds had been made out by assessee to interfere in the selection and appointment of Respondent. Assessee not only lacks the locus to file the present petition, but had also deliberately concealed and suppressed the aforementioned crucial facts, which had been brought to our knowledge by Respondent and the intervener.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
