Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 733 (SC)

Center for Integrity, Governance & Training in Vigilance Administration v. Union of India

2015-05-12

AMITAVA ROY, ARUN MISHRA, H.L.DATTU

body2015
ORDER : By our order dated 17.12.2014, while recording the submissions made by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, we had stated that they can proceed with the selection process, but before any appointments are made, they should take the leave of the Court. 2. Learned Attorney General would request us to permit them to proceed further in the matter in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short, “the Act”). 3. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of the appointments of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioner, which are kept vacant from the last few months, we permit them to proceed further in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. After such appointments are made, the learned Attorney General would produce a copy of the order and the entire original record before this Court. 5. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. 6. Call this matter after the ensuing summer vacation.