As per case facts, 'S' was selected by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of Chief Controller of Explosives. While his approval was pending, a CBI inquiry ... was initiated against him, and later an adverse remark was noted in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR). The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) subsequently rejected the UPSC's recommendation for 'S's appointment, citing these post-selection events. 'S' challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled that the ACC should not have considered events subsequent to the UPSC recommendation and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal's decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the ACC was justified in considering events subsequent to the UPSC recommendation for determining a candidate's suitability and whether the ACC was obligated to provide reasons for rejecting the UPSC's recommendation to the candidate or the UPSC. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the government is permitted to take into account developments that occur after a selection has been made by the UPSC. The UPSC's recommendations are advisory, and while the government can choose to reject them for valid reasons, these reasons must be recorded on file and presented to the legislature as per Article 323, not necessarily communicated to the candidate or the UPSC directly. The Court found that the ACC had given due consideration to the adverse remark and that its decision was neither mala fide nor arbitrary.