2011 (1) TMI 1082 - SC - Indian Laws

Term of service - Petitioner after completion of his five-year term was reappointed for another term of five years and was due to complete his second term of five years - response to an advertisement issued by the respondent regarding vacancies made application for the post of Judicial Member of the Tribunal the post which he had held for nine and a half years at the time of making application refused for appointment for the vacancy for the reason that the petitioner would complete his second term of 5 years as a Judicial Member of the Tribunal vide the impugned communication - main premise of the petitioner s challenge of the said communication is that after completion of a tenure of 10 years he is eligible to apply for the post afresh and must be considered on merits for his appointment as a Member of the Tribunal and should not be disqualified for appointment merely because he has completed 10 years in that office - Held that - Plea that Section 10A which restricts the total term of the Member of the Administrative Tribunal to ten years should be regarded as unconstitutional has also no substance at all. The age of retirement of a Government servant has been raised from 58 years to 60 years. Initially under the unamended provisions of the Act a retired Government servant had a tenure of only two years as a Member of the Tribunal and it was noticed that he was not able to contribute much while performing duties as a Member of the Tribunal. It was felt necessary that every Member of the Tribunal should have a tenure of five years. Therefore the provisions relating to term of office incorporated in Section 8 of the Act were amended in the year 1987 and provision was made fixing term of office of Chairman Vice-chairman and Members at five years period statement made by learned senior counsel that we need to place our interpretation on the provisions of the Amended Act which further principles of Judicial independence. Passage from the book referred to by the learned senior counsel pertains to the legal system in American Courts and Hybrid Tribunals which has nothing to do with our legal system. Secondly the statement relied on by the learned senior counsel is an extract from the book of a jurist which has neither any persuasive value nor legal binding on us. If the suggestion made by an American author suits our legal system it is for the Legislature to take note of it the doctrine of independence of judiciary has nothing to do when the tenure is fixed by a statute no merit in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Petition dismissed

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:

• Whether a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), after completing two consecutive terms totaling ten years, is eligible for fresh appointment as a Member of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006.
• Whether the provisions of Section 8 and Section 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended, which prescribe term limits and age restrictions for Members of the Tribunal, are constitutionally valid and applicable to Members appointed before and after the amendment.
• Whether the doctrine of stare decisis and binding precedents require adherence to the earlier Supreme Court decision in A.K. Behra v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of the ten-year maximum term limit for Members of the Tribunal.
• Whether the petitioner's interpretation that a Member who has completed ten years can apply afresh for appointment and continue beyond ten years until attaining the age of 65 years is tenable under the amended Act.
• Whether the legislative intent behind the term limits and age restrictions violates principles of judicial independence or fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility for fresh appointment after completion of two terms (10 years) as Member of the Tribunal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended in 2006, particularly Sections 6, 8, and 10A, govern qualifications, terms of office, and transitional provisions for Members of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court's three-judge Bench decision in A.K. Behra v. Union of India (2010) is a binding precedent that upheld the constitutional validity of the ten-year term limit for Members.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that Section 8(2) of the amended Act clearly fixes the term of office of a Member at five years, extendable by one further term of five years, totaling a maximum of ten years. The proviso restricts holding office beyond the age of 65 years. The term "term of office" was interpreted as a fixed and definite period during which a Member may hold office. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that after completion of ten years, a Member could apply afresh and be appointed again, holding that the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, and does not permit such reappointment beyond ten years.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had been appointed twice, serving nearly ten years on the Tribunal. The respondent's refusal to consider his application for fresh appointment was based on the statutory term limits. The Court found no ambiguity in the statutory provisions and noted that the petitioner's argument would nullify the purpose of the amendment.

Application of law to facts: Applying the statutory provisions, the petitioner was ineligible for fresh appointment as a Member after completing two terms totaling ten years. The Court observed that the legislative intent was to limit the maximum term and not allow indefinite extensions or reappointments beyond ten years.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the term limits apply only to continuous service and that fresh appointment is possible after ten years. The Court rejected this, noting that the statute's language and legislative intent do not support such a reading. The Court also dismissed the example of a stray administrative reappointment as an anomaly rather than a precedent.

Conclusions: A Member who has completed two terms (ten years) is not eligible for fresh appointment as a Member of the Tribunal under the amended Act.

Issue 2: Constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (as amended)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The 2006 Amendment Act introduced Section 10A as a savings clause protecting terms of office of Members appointed prior to the amendment. The Supreme Court in A.K. Behra upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions, including the ten-year term limit and age restrictions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that the ten-year term limit and age restrictions do not violate fundamental rights or principles of judicial independence. The Court noted that security of tenure in the context of Tribunal Members differs from that of the judiciary and that the legislative scheme is rational and not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the amendment merely made explicit what was implicit earlier regarding term limits.

Key evidence and findings: The Court examined the legislative history, the text of Sections 8 and 10A, and prior judicial pronouncements. It noted that the amendment was enacted to improve efficiency and expertise by allowing a fixed term with possible extension, but preventing indefinite tenure.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the term limits and age restrictions was found to be without merit, as the provisions were consistent with legislative competence and constitutional principles.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the provisions were arbitrary and violated judicial independence. The Court distinguished the Tribunal Members from constitutional judges and held that the provisions are valid and do not impinge on independence.

Conclusions: Sections 8 and 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended, are constitutionally valid and applicable to Members appointed before and after the amendment.

Issue 3: Applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis and binding precedent

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court extensively discussed the doctrine of stare decisis, citing authoritative precedents emphasizing consistency, certainty, and stability in judicial decisions. The Court referred to prior judgments explaining when departure from precedent is permissible and the importance of following larger Bench decisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the three-judge Bench decision in A.K. Behra is binding and applicable to the present case. The Court noted that the issues raised were substantially covered in that decision and that no extraordinary reasons existed to depart from the precedent.

Key evidence and findings: The Court reviewed the arguments that the present case raised different issues or that the earlier decision did not consider certain points. It found these contentions unpersuasive, as the earlier judgment had addressed the constitutional validity and term limits comprehensively.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis to uphold the prior ruling, thereby rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the term limits and eligibility for appointment.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the present case involves fresh questions not decided earlier. The Court rejected this, emphasizing the binding nature of the earlier decision and the need for legal certainty.

Conclusions: The doctrine of stare decisis mandates adherence to the earlier Supreme Court ruling in A.K. Behra, which is binding and dispositive of the issues raised.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 6 and 8 regarding qualifications and term limits

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 6 prescribes qualifications for appointment, while Section 8 prescribes terms of office. The Court analyzed the interplay between these provisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the qualifications under Section 6 do not override or negate the term limits prescribed under Section 8. Both sections must be read harmoniously, and the term limits are explicit and mandatory.

Key evidence and findings: The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that satisfying Section 6 qualifications entitles one to appointment irrespective of term limits in Section 8.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner met qualifications but was ineligible due to term limits; the Court found this consistent with the statutory scheme.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's counsel sought to separate qualifications from term limits; the Court rejected this as undermining the legislative purpose of fixed terms.

Conclusions: Eligibility under Section 6 does not override the term limits prescribed under Section 8.

Issue 5: Alleged violation of judicial independence and constitutional principles

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to constitutional principles and prior decisions distinguishing between constitutional judges and tribunal members.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the fixed term and age limits for Tribunal Members do not impinge on judicial independence as understood in the constitutional context. The independence of judiciary doctrine does not apply to fixed-term statutory appointments.

Key evidence and findings: The Court cited prior rulings that security of tenure is not an absolute right for Tribunal Members and that legislative competence includes prescribing terms and conditions.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's challenge based on judicial independence was rejected as misplaced.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner relied on foreign juristic writings on judicial independence; the Court found such authorities inapplicable to the Indian statutory scheme.

Conclusions: The term limits and age restrictions do not violate constitutional principles of judicial independence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The provisions of Section 8 fixing maximum term of office of the chairman at sixty eight years and of a Member of the Tribunal at 10 years, cannot be regarded as unconstitutional because concept of security of tenure does not apply to such appointments. Said provision cannot be assailed as arbitrary having effect of jeopardizing security of tenure."

"The term 'term of office' as applied to an office, refers to a fixed and definite period of time that an appointee is authorised to serve in office. The second part of the Section gives discretion to the appointing authority to extend the term of office of a member of the Tribunal to one more term of five years. The expression 'extendable' could only mean that the term of office can be extended if the parties agree. The proviso restricts holding office beyond the age of 65 years."

"The doctrine of stare decisis is a very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are extraordinary or special reasons to do so."

"The amendment merely made explicit what was implicit earlier regarding term limits. The provision restricting the total tenure of a Member to ten years is neither arbitrary nor illegal."

"The independence of the federal judiciary is at least as important a constitutional value today as it was when Hamilton articulated the need for it in Federalist 78 and 79 ... [but] the doctrine of 'independence of judiciary' has nothing to do when the tenure is fixed by a statute."

"If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it, notwithstanding any hardship or inconvenience."

Final determinations:

• A Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal who has completed two terms totaling ten years is not eligible for fresh appointment as a Member under the amended Act.
• The provisions of Sections 8 and 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended, prescribing term limits and age restrictions, are constitutionally valid and enforceable.
• The doctrine of stare decisis requires adherence to the earlier Supreme Court ruling in A.K. Behra, which is binding and dispositive of the issues.
• Qualifications under Section 6 do not override the term limits prescribed under Section 8.
• The term limits and age restrictions do not violate constitutional principles of judicial independence.
• The writ petition challenging the respondent's refusal to consider the petitioner's appointment after completion of ten years is dismissed.