COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

referring to respondent no.2 - The Committee had considered the A note and the matter was also discussed with the Director, CBI - The Committee found that there were no findings in the papers that the person mentioned therein is the same person under consideration for appointment and there is nothing about the veracity of the contents of the document - The Committee further found the fact B that the CBI_ itse(f moved the proposal on 06.07.2017 categorically mentioning that respondent no.2 is suitable to hold the post of Special Director, CBI - The Committee also held that no further verified material has been brought on record and the Committee decided to recommend the name of respondent no.2 for appointment as Special Director, CBI - The Committee has also kept in view the fact that C the Vigilance Commission does not take cognizance of complaints received just on the verge of appointments or promotions unless they are proven misconducts - The decision taken by the Selection Committee was unanimous - Once there is consultation, the content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review though D lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope ofjudicial review - Further, even in the FIR filed by the CBI, the name of respondent no.2 was not mentioned at ail - Thus, lodging of FIR will not come in the way of considering respondent no.2 for the post of Special Director.. after taking into consideration his service record and work and experience - The Minutes of the Meeting (MoM) of the Selection Committee shows that the news items reported in the print and electronic media that no decision was taken with respect to the appointment on the post of Special Director, CBI in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 21.10.2017 are factual(v incorrect - Likewise, the statement of the Professor of the University of London reported in the Indian Express appears to be based on the newspaper reports which have been foiind to be ·factually incorrect, and therefore, it has no substance -Appointment of Respondent No.

2 to the post of Special Director, CBI does not suffer from any illegality. F E Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others (2009) 8 SCC 273 : [2009) 10 SCR 921 - relied on. Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another (1998) 1 SCC 226: [1997) 6 Suppl. SCR 595; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Others v. G H 156 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 l 7] 11 S.C.R.