1995 (5) TMI 290 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
2. Propriety of entertaining the petition as public interest litigation.
3. Locus standi of the petitioners.
4. Validity of the appointments of the Vice-Chairman and Members of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
5. Compliance with the direction for a High Powered Selection Committee.
6. Procedural fairness and allegations of fraud in the appointment process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act:
The High Court considered the preliminary objection regarding the bar of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Act, which was not pressed before the Supreme Court. Therefore, this issue did not play a significant role in the final judgment.

2. Propriety of Entertaining the Petition as Public Interest Litigation:
The petitioners, who were police inspectors, challenged the constitution of the SAT and the appointments of its Vice-Chairman and Members. The High Court entertained their petition as public interest litigation. However, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners were motivated by personal benefits rather than public interest, aiming to paralyze the Tribunal's functioning for their gain. The Court concluded that this was a glaring case of abuse of the court process in the guise of public interest litigation.

3. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The petitioners' locus standi was questioned, but the High Court proceeded with the case. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the petitioners lacked a genuine public interest and were instead driven by personal motives to challenge the appointments, thereby lacking the proper standing to file the petition.

4. Validity of the Appointments of the Vice-Chairman and Members of the SAT:
The main contention was whether the appointments were made following the directions given by the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar's case. The High Court quashed the appointments, deeming them arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appointments were made after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and that there was no violation of any law in the process. The Court emphasized that the appellants were duly qualified and eligible, and their appointments were not fraudulent or vitiated.

5. Compliance with the Direction for a High Powered Selection Committee:
The Supreme Court examined whether the direction to set up a High Powered Selection Committee was mandatory or advisory. It concluded that the direction was advisory and not mandatory. The Court noted that the amendment to Section 6(7) of the Act, which required consultation with the Chief Justice of India, was in compliance with the Court's directive. The Court found that the Government had effectively complied with the order by appointing High Powered Selection Committees at both the Central and State levels.

6. Procedural Fairness and Allegations of Fraud in the Appointment Process:
The High Court had described the appointment process as "murky," "self-motivated," and "biased." The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had drawn unsustainable and unwarranted inferences based on suspicion. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had inspected government files and drawn conclusions without giving the appellants an opportunity to explain, violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointments were processed and approved by the Chief Justice of India and that there was no evidence of fraud or undue influence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appellants to resume their offices unless they had retired. The Court directed that the appellants be treated as on duty until their retirement and be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances. The Supreme Court also imposed exemplary costs on the petitioners, directing them to pay Rs. 15,000 each, recoverable from their provident fund, gratuity, or other future monetary benefits.