Dr J Thulaseedhara Kurup v. Appointments Committee of the Cabinet & Ors.

10. It is further submitted that respondent no. 3 acted upon the advice and recommendations of the Ministry of Culture received by it vide reference file No. Akd-15/5/2018-Akad/73 dated 8th February 2022, whereby the NSD was advised to start the selection process for the appointment of the post of Director afresh. Hence, there is no illegality, arbitrariness or error in the order dated 29th January 2022.

11. This Court has also been informed that the Predecessor Bench had also called upon the records pertaining to the decision of the ACC regarding the appointment of the petitioner, and it is prayed that such records may be perused by this Court for proper adjudication of the matter.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. On 19th May 2023, the Predecessor Bench of this Court passed directions for bringing before the Court the records of ACC in a sealed cover. Pursuant to the order dated 19th May, 2023, Ms. Anjana, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, has appeared today with the records of ACC in a sealed cover for perusal of this Court. The seal of the records of ACC has been opened in the Court. The record has been perused and after perusal, all files have been re-sealed and returned to the concerned officer.

14. The documents placed before this Court in sealed cover reveal the reasons for which the petitioner’s candidature was not considered. The document in question also bears detailed noting dated 22nd December 2021 by the Ministry of Culture pertaining to the case of the petitioner. The issue before this Court raised on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the record in question, is that pursuant to the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court the candidature of the petitioner was to be considered by the Cabinet Committee, i.e., the ACC, which passed the impugned order without providing any reasons.

15. Comprising of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, the ACC is a Cabinet Committee that plays a pivotal role of taking decisions in respect of the appointments specified in the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. While carrying out its functions, the Appointments Committee ensures that only the most suited and qualified personnel is appointed to hold the offices of the Government that are of grave importance and significance. The role of Cabinet Committees has been explicitly laid down, based on the guiding principles of division of labour, as an aiding arm to the Cabinet to reduce its burden and workload, and to facilitate meticulous, painstaking and in-depth examination of any policy or other decision. There is no room for pardon when the most significant and integral positions in the hierarchy of officers of the Ministries, Governmental Departments and its instrumentalities is in question.

16. The decisions by the ACC as well as other Cabinet Committees form the basis of policy formulation and decision making and are fundamental for governance. Cabinet Notes, the instruments to policy making, prepared by the Ministries/Departments facilitate such decision making. Such notes hold substantial worth for consideration on issues being deliberated upon and decided by the Cabinet and Secretariat. Recently, efforts have also been made to ensure that such Cabinet Notes are of an impeccable quality, are conceptually clear, encapsulating all necessary information, lucid and well organised.

17. The Cabinet Secretariat issued guidelines in the year 2011 and then in 2018 for preparation of Cabinet Notes. One of the relevant points to be noted in the same is reproduced hereunder, which lays down the procedure of recommendation/proposal flowing from the Ministry to the Cabinet:

18. It is apparent that the intention of the making and providing Cabinet Notes is to put forth the views of the proposing Ministries/Departments in the most honest, authentic and candid manner so as to properly facilitate the decision-making process of the Cabinet.

19. In the matter at hand as well, the petitioner’s candidature was being considered for the post of Director of the National School of Drama, which falls under the list of business of the Ministry of Culture/Sanskriti Mantralaya, at Item 47. The Ministry of Culture made a proposal to the ACC regarding the candidature of the petitioner herein and it was for the ACC to finally decide, approve or disapprove, the proposal so forwarded by the Ministry of Culture. It was then for the ACC to make a decision upon the proposal while considering all the material as well as the inputs, views, suggestions and forwarded by the Ministry of Culture.

20. The ACC, being one of the most esteemed Committees playing key role in governance, in all its wisdom made a decision based on recommendations of the Ministry of Culture. All the relevant facts and material as well as inputs were provided to the Committee. The requirement of such material is also specified in the proforma of recommendations of ACC, which requires details of the Ministry making the proposal, details of the proposal, the relevant recruitment rules applicable, details as to whether the proposal has been approved by the Minister-in-charge, personal details of the person/officer being recommended including his qualifications, experience and other relevant details. The proforma in itself is comprehensive enough to contain every necessary detail of the person/officer being recommended so as to ascertain his/her eligibility for the post he/she is being considered for. There is no reason for this Court to speculate or come to the conclusion that in the case of the petitioner before this Court, the rules or procedure were followed any differently.

21. Upon perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is evident that sufficient grounds were considered by the ACC while reaching to the conclusion that the candidature of the petitioner deserved to be rejected. The detailed Notes given by the Ministry of Culture also elaborated its recommendations, suggestions and all relevant details that were deemed necessary and essential for making a decision qua the petitioner’s candidature. There is nothing in the records produced before this Court to suggest that the ACC passed the order without any justifiable reasons.

22. Moreover, merely because the impugned Office Order, in its contents, did not prescribe the reasons for the decision in bare language, it cannot be inferred that while passing the order the ACC did not deliberate or reflect upon the relevant considerations necessary to arrive at the decision. The position has also been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while passing orders of administrative nature regarding matters pertaining to selection/recruitment, there is no obligation on the authorities to record reasons for its decision, unless there is a provision in place mandating so. The role of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. In the absence of any rule, regulation or procedure, there was no obligation on the ACC for providing reasons while making a decision and passing the order regarding approval or non-approval of a candidate. Furthermore, the Courts need not interfere in administrative decision making so long as the principles of natural justice are observed and there is no gross illegality in the decision made by a Committee making decisions regarding services.

23. In the case of Union of India and Others vs. N.P. Dhamania and Others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the procedure to be followed at the time of consideration of promotion of an Officer by the ACC, observed that the ACC need to record reasons while differing from the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee but need not communicate the same to the Officer concerned. From the judgment it can be derived that as long as the file of the Officer concerned specifies the reasons for approval or disapproval for a proposal there is no reason to set the decision aside the decision or direct the ACC to reconsider. Moreover, these reasons need also not be communicated to the Officer. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the ACC had failed to record the reasons in the file of the Officer and only for that reason the ACC was directed to reconsider the case of the Officer concerned therein. However, in the instant case, this Court has taken a close view of the file and records of the petitioner produced at the time of hearing in sealed cover, which show that sufficient reasons and comments have been noted in the proposal made by the Ministry for the ACC to reach the decision of non-approval.

24. In Union of India and Another vs. Samar Singh and Others, (1996) 10 SCC 555, the facts of the case were that a Special Committee, consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, prepared a panel of IAS Officer of Batch of 1962 for appointment as Secretaries to the Government of India and equivalent post and the said panel was considered by the ACC, where appointments were made, but the respondent therein for not considered for the empanelment. While addressing the grievances of the party aggrieved, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

25. The aforementioned reflects the view that reasons need not be penned down while a Committee is considering the candidature or eligibility of appointments as long as all the relevant facts, circumstances and material are before such Committee and are considered and deliberated upon by it before reaching to a conclusion.

26. In National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.

Supreme Court, while adjudicating upon the question of whether reasons were to be recorded by a Selection Committee while rejecting the candidature for the Professor at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Government of India, an institute of national importance recognised by the Central Government, held as under:

27. Therefore, it is apparent that the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that in the cases of promotion, selections, and appointments etc. the Committee in question need not necessarily record the reasons for its decision so long as the due consideration is given to the merits of the candidature of the person/officer concerned and where there is no intervening rule in place.

28. In the instant case, although there was no statutory, or any other, obligation on the ACC to record the reasons for non-approval of the petitioner’s candidature, the record produced before this Court shows that the reasons were in fact noted in the file of the candidate, i.e., the petitioner. Hence, apart from the position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the fact remains that in the instant case, the ACC was informed about all the relevant factors and considerations necessary for deciding the case of the petitioner. There were sufficient reasons recorded in the detailed note placed before the ACC by the Ministry of Culture. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there were no justifiable reasons for non-approval of the petitioner’s candidature.

29. Moreover, the reliefs which the petitioner has been seeking before the Courts have already been granted to him to the effect that his candidature has been considered by the competent and highest authority for appointment.

30. Hence, considering the entirety of the matter, the facts, circumstances, submissions, objections, the contents of the impugned order and, most importantly, the contents of the original files as placed before this Court by Ms. Anjana, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th January 2022. There were adequate reasons for the ACC for not accepting the proposal for consideration of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Director at respondent no. 3/NSD.

31. Accordingly, the instant petition along with accompanying applications stands dismissed.

32. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.