Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bhupendra Nath Singh vs Union Of India . on 24 June, 2016
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, A.M. Khanwilkar
1
ITEM NO.115 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7826/2011
BHUPENDRA NATH SINGH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 24/06/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
[VACATION BENCH]
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr.N.K. Karhail, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anant K. Vatsya, Adv.
Mr. Ghanshyam, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, Adv.
Ms. Vandita Nain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [MADHU NARULA]
Signature Not Verified
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Date: 2016.06.27 14:13:52 IST Reason:
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7826/2011 BHUPENDRA NATH SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. The issue raised in the present appeal relates to legality of appointment of respondent No.8 – Ravindra Kumar Panth alias Ravindra Pant as Director of Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Research Institute situated in Nalanada in the State of Bihar.
2. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the respondent No.8 was a member of the Management Board of the Institute which accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Director.
The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the appointment of the respondent No.8 rejecting the contention that selection process was vitiated by bias.
23. We are not called upon to go into the aforesaid question in view of the fact that the respondent No.8 has since retired from service.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as the issue raised has become academic.
5. We have not expressed any opinion about the correctness of the findings recorded in the impugned order.
....................,J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ...................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) NEW DELHI JUNE 24, 2016