SC lifts embargo, allows Centre to appoint CVC, VC
The Supreme Court Wednesday allowed the Centre to go ahead with the process of appointing Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and a Vigilance Commissioner from the list of candidates shortlisted by the government.india Updated: May 14, 2015 01:13 IST
The Supreme Court Wednesday allowed the Centre to go ahead with the process of appointing Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and a Vigilance Commissioner from the list of candidates shortlisted by the government.
The two posts have been lying vacant since December 17, 2014, after the SC ordered the Centre shall not make any appointments without informing the court. According to the Centre, it has shortlisted 10 candidates from 130 applications it received in response to the advertisement issued for the posts.
“Keeping in view the urgency for appointment of the CVC and vigilance commissioner, the posts which have been vacant since last few months, we allow to make the appointments,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu.
It, however, asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that after making the appointments he shall place all the material related to the appointment including the list of candidates who had applied. Rohatgi claimed the government had made the required amendments in the rules to enable more candidates to apply.
He said the changes were in consonance with the suggestions made by the petitioner, Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration in its PIL. The bench also kept it open for the petitioner to move the court if it found the government had violated the rules.
Rohatgi said the government had started the procedure for appointment of CVC and a Vigilance Commissioner and a committee of three Secretaries – Cabinet Secretary, Finance Secretary and Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training - had shortlisted the candidates.
He claimed there was transparency in the procedure. “The purpose of transaparency has been achieved and now the appointment process is at the final stage,” he told the bench.
Rohatgi requested the bench to dispose the PIL but the petitioner’s counsel advocate Prashant Bhushan objected to it. According to him the procedure adopted was contrary to the law under which a panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and Home Minister was to make the appointment.
Rohatgi rebutted Bhushan and said the final call would be taken by the Prime Minister-led panel.