NSD director appointment: Delhi HC upholds govt decision to reject proposal

It was Kurup’s case that in the reply to his RTI plea it was said that he ranked no. 1 on merit for the candidature for the post of Director. Kurup approached the High Court through a writ petition in 2019 seeking directions for consideration of his candidature. On May 13, 2019, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court directed the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) to get the approval for Kurup’s candidature for the post of Director, NSD.

In the meantime, the vacancy was re-notified. Subsequently, Kurup being aggrieved of the inaction in pursuance of his application, re-notification of vacancies and in view of the directions of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court filed another Writ Petition in 2020. In that matter, the Coordinate Bench of the High Court directed the ACC not to publish the result or issue appointment letters for the post in question and also directed the ACC to consider the candidature of the petitioner through its orders of June 23, 2021 and November 16, 2021.

On January 29, 2022 the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) rejected Kurup’s “proposal for appointment”, pursuant to which he approached the High Court.

Kurup said that pursuant to the orders of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, his candidature was to be considered by the ACC, which passed the order without providing any reasons.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in its August 2 order said, “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.”

The High Court said that merely because the January 29, 2022 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.

Justice Singh further said that it has been settled by the 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”.

“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,” the High Court said.

The High Court, however, said that in the instant case the court had taken a close view of the file and records produced at the time of hearing in a “sealed cover”, which show that the “reasons were in fact noted in the file” of the petitioner, even though there was no statutory or any other obligation on the ACC to record its reasons for non-approval of the petitioner’s candidature.

“There were sufficient reasons recorded in the detailed note placed before the ACC by the Ministry of Culture…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,” Justice Singh said, adding that it finds no reason to interfere with the January 2022 order.