Government is "dilly-dallying" for over a year in deciding whether the CMD of SPMCIL, which produces bank notes, coins, postage stamps, non-judicial stamps and other government documents, should continue in the post.
"Who is stopping you (government) from taking a decision? You have been dilly-dallying for over a year now. You all seem to be hand-in-glove," a bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva said after the Centre sought six more weeks to come back with a decision.
"We gave you four weeks on last date (March 2) after you said a decision will be taken in that time. Yet you have not done anything. Now you ask for six more weeks," the bench said and "we thought government would take a decision by now".
It refused to grant the time sought by the government and listed the matter for arguments on April 27.
The court was hearing a PIL challenging the appointment and extension of tenure of M S Rana, Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd (SPMCIL).
During the brief hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Ramakant Dixit, alleged before the court that Rana was "completely ineligible" for the post and he managed to get appointed by falsely claiming eligibility.
Bhushan said Rana has been heading the SPMCIL, a sensitive organisation, despite several enquiries pending against him.
The lawyer also said that in 2014, government had sent a proposal saying Rana's tenure be not extended. However, no steps were taken thereafter and the official was continuing on extension even now.
Rana's lawyer refuted the allegations and said he had been cleared by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The lawyer argued that if the government has not yet taken a decision it cannot be held against him, to which the court said,"You completed your tenure. So you could have left on your own."
To this, Rana's lawyer said his client was eligible for extension as per government rules.
Rana's lawyer also said that the PIL was filed by a
competitor who was "eyeing" the post of CMD of SPMCIL.
The court had earlier asked the government why a person with even a "slight taint" be heading the SPMCIL.
It had also asked the government on what grounds Rana's tenure which had ended in March 2014 was being extended and that the Finance Ministry had refused to extend it.
The government had told the court that Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister was looking into the matter of the CMD's extension and it is yet to decide.
However, till date no decision has been communicated to the court by the government.
Dixit in his PIL has contended that Rana had sought appointment as a government servant and according to the rules prevalent at that time, he was not eligible for an extension.
Dixit has also argued that at the time of Rana's appointment in 2009, he was not eligible for the post.
The petition has also claimed that Rana was appointed without the requisite clearance from the CVC and sought an order removing him from office as well as a declaration that his appointment was void ab-initio.
