Examine the role of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet in senior appointments. Does the practice of keeping recruitment rules 'in abeyance' conflict with the principles under Articles 14 and 309?

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was set up under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 [2]. It is the final authority on senior appointments. It recently re-employed PIB chief Dhirendra Ojha for one year beyond retirement and kept the recruitment rules "in abeyance" for his case [1]. This raises the question of whether such discretion fits constitutional service principles.

Role of the ACC in senior appointments

• Composition: The Prime Minister chairs it and the Home Minister is the other member. The Establishment Officer's Division processes its proposals [2].
• Scope: It clears posts listed in the Rules, including Joint Secretary and above and the heads of key agencies [2].
• Functions: It handles empanelment, appointment, extension and re-employment. For example, it approved Ojha's contract from 1 Oct 2026 to 30 Sep 2027 [1].
• Significance: It lets elected leaders shape the senior bureaucracy and keeps sensitive posts filled without gaps.
• Concerns: It gives no public reasons for its decisions, and its approvals are sometimes delayed.

Abeyance of recruitment rules vs. Articles 14 and 309

Where it need not conflict

• Article 309 lets the President frame service rules [3]. Most recruitment rules also contain a "power to relax" clause, so relaxing them can itself be lawful.
• In Common Cause (2021), the Supreme Court accepted extensions after retirement if they are for a short period [4].
• Keeping experienced officers during critical periods is a legitimate aim of administration.

Where it conflicts

• Article 14: Under E.P. Royappa (1974), arbitrary action violates equality. Relaxing rules for one person without reasons denies eligible juniors equal consideration.
• Article 309: Rules framed under it are meant to bind the executive. Suspending them routinely makes them meaningless.
• Repeated extensions: In July 2023, the Supreme Court held ED Director S.K. Mishra's repeated extensions illegal and ended his tenure on 31 July [4].
• Cadre morale: Repeated extensions block promotions and suggest the posts are politicised.

Verdict: Keeping rules in abeyance is not unconstitutional in itself. It conflicts with Articles 14 and 309 when it is unreasoned, repeated or tailored to one individual.

The ACC gives the executive legitimate control over senior appointments, but that control should be structured. The way forward is to record written reasons for every relaxation, plan successors during any extension year, and limit relaxations to one short term. This would keep the civil service merit-based and neutral, and in line with the Constitution's promise of equality.