Case Law Details
Manorama Kumari D/O. Uma Shankar Prasad Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ to direct the respondent Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India, to complete the process of reappointment of the petitioner within time period.
The second limb of the prayer is to direct the respondent to frame rational and transparent policy giving emphasis to the legislative mandate in Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013 in order to maintain independence of the judicial officers.
The petitioner herein wants to get completed the process of her reappointment within time period. Reappointment is not a vested right for the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner has shown her willingness for reappointment and her case may be liable to be considered in accordance with law and that reappointment is contemplated in clause 7 of the circular referred to above.
Merely because the petitioner has shown her willingness to be considered, merely because she is liable to be considered and merely because she has opted for reappointment, could not be ground to seek writ from the Court that her appointment process may be completed. The petitioner’s case could be at the best considered along with other aspiring candidates in accordance with law and on its own merits. Upon being queried, learned senior advocate for the petitioner stated that five persons have been seeking appointment as Members of the Tribunal. Any direction or observation in respect of the petitioner in particular to complete the process cannot be granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
