Delhi High Court Upholds Centre's Decision Rejecting Proposal For Appointing Dr. J Thulaseedhara Kurup As NSD Director

The Delhi High Court has upheld a January 2019 decision of the Union Ministry’s Department of Personnel and Training rejecting the proposal for appointment of Dr. J Thulaseedhara Kurup as the director of National School of Drama.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that were adequate reasons for the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for not accepting the proposal for consideration of Kurup’s candidature for the post.

“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,” the court observed.

Justice Singh dismissed Kurup’s plea against the Ministry’s decision. Kurup had applied for the post of Director with NSD in 2018. However, since he did not receive any call or intimation after the interview, he filed an RTI application which revealed that he was ranked no. 1 on merit for the candidature.

A separate petition was then filed by Kurup wherein a coordinate bench in May 2019 directed the ACC to get the approval for his candidature for the post of Director. Later, another plea was moved by him after the vacancies were renotified. The coordinate bench had again directed the ACC to consider his candidature in 2021. However, the Union Government rejected the proposal for his appointment.

Kurup submitted that no justifiable or substantial reasons were provided to him by the authorities while rejecting his candidature for the post of NSD Director.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Singh said that although there was no statutory or any other obligation on the ACC to record its reasons for non-approval of Kurup’s candidature, reasons for the same were noted in his file.

“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,” the court said.

It added that the 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 considered and deliberated upon by it before reaching to a conclusion.

“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 court said.

Furthermore, Justice Singh said that merely because the impugned order did not prescribe reasons for the decision in bare language, it cannot be inferred that the ACC did not deliberate or reflect upon the relevant considerations necessary to arrive at the decision.

“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,” the court observed.

Title: DR J THULASEEDHARA KURUP v. APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 680

Click Here To Read Order