R.S. MIITAL versus UNION OF INDIA

R.S. MIITAL versus UNION OF INDIA

A candidate on a select panel does not have a vested right to appointment, but must be considered for appointment, and the appointing authority must have a justifiable reason to decline. Government must process recommendations from a Selection Board headed by a Supreme Court Judge promptly, but inaction alone is insufficient for mandamus unless reasons are given. On the facts, no direction to appoint appellant was issued as panel life expired and higher ranked candidates either did not join or withdrew.

Parties
Appellant: R.S. Mittal; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recruitment, Appointment, Selection Panel, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Service Law Recruitment Appointment Selection Panel Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.S. Mittal

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a candidate on a select panel has a vested right to appointment to the post of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Selection Board’s recommendation is binding and enforceable
  3. 3 What are the obligations of the Central Government in processing Selection Board recommendations

Ratio Decidendi

A candidate on a select panel does not have a vested right to appointment, but must be considered for appointment, and the appointing authority must have a justifiable reason to decline. Government must process recommendations from a Selection Board headed by a Supreme Court Judge promptly, but inaction alone is insufficient for mandamus unless reasons are given. On the facts, no direction to appoint appellant was issued as panel life expired and higher ranked candidates either did not join or withdrew.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Central Government directed to pay Rs. 30,000 as costs to appellant