Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
For the Appellants :- Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. A.K. Sahu, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocates. For the Respondents :- Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, AG., Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocates. An officer who is suitable in all respects is not ignored merely because he has less than two years to superannuate from the date of his appointment - No clarification is required - Criminal Miscellaneous petitions dismissed. [Paras 3 and 4]ORDER
1. The learned Attorney General does not press these criminal miscellaneous petitions. He submits that we may "clarify that this Hon'ble Court's aforesaid directions will not exclude from the zone of consideration an officer who is found suitable in all respects even though his period of tenure at the time of selection is less than two years". 2. Having regard to what is stated in point no.7 of paragraph 58 of the judgment in Vineet Narain's case (namely, "This would ensure that an officer suitable in all respects is not ignored merely because he has less than two years to superannuate from the date of his appointment"), no clarification is required. 3. The criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. .