TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led Writ Petition No. 8248 of 2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the panel prepared for the post of Vice-Chairman in various branches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in India and seeking for preparation of a fresh panel. Empanelment of V.K. Majotra, respondent No. 5, was challenged on the ground that he was not qualified to be chosen for the post of Vice-Chairman to the Tribunal. He also impugned the constitutional validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being ultra vires of the Constitution of India and inoperative. 4. By an interim order dated 25th February, 2002 the High Court being prima facie of the opinion that only a sitting or retired High Court Judge or an advocate who is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge could be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal issued a direction that in the panel already prepared for appointment of Vice-Chairman of various Branches of the Tribunal and in future panels also only the person referred to Section 6(2)(a) of the Act could be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner in which the petition has been disposed of and the decision arrived at by the High Court. It is contended that point on which the writ petition was disposed of was neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the High Court by any of the parties to the writ petition; that point raised in the writ petition has neither been adverted to or adjudicated upon by the High Court and that the High Court was wrong in adopting such an approach. As to whether a person not having judicial experience could be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal was not questioned in the writ petition. Similarly, vires of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) were not challenged. High Court without striking down the provisions of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (e) has obliterated them from the statute book by holding that henceforth the appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman be made only from amongst the persons mentioned in Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. It is further contended that the High Court did not stop at giving direction that the Vice-Chairman of CAT should be from amongst the persons having judicial training but went a step ahead to hold that CEGAT, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points are to be raised then the concerned and affected parties should fee put to the notice oft the additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Parties cannot be taken by surprise. We leave the discussion here. 10. We are also in agreement with the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing further directions to the Secretary, Law Department, Union of India, the secretary Personnel and Appointment Department, Union of India, the Cabinet Secretary of Union of India and to the Chief Secretary of the U.P. Government as also to the Chairman of the CAT and other appropriate authorities that henceforth the appointment to the post of presiding officer of various other Tribunals such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal etc., should be from amongst the judicial members alone. Such a finding could not be recorded without appropriate pleadings and notifying the concerned and affected parties. 11. The relevant provisions of Section 6 read as under: 6. Qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members.- (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a Judge of a High Court; Clause (b) provides that a person has for at least two yeas, held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government of India; Clause (bb) provides that a person has, for at least five yeas, held the post of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the central or a state government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India; and Clause (c) provides that a person has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member. 13. Administrative Tribunals Act was enacted in the year 1985 by the Parliament under Article 323A of the Constitution. Constitutional validity of this Act was challenged and upheld by the Constitution Bench of this Court in S.P. Sampath v. Union of India and Anr., . Vires of the provisions of the Act other than Section 6(1)(c) were upheld. Section 6(1)(c) provided that Secretary to the Government of India could be appointed as Chairman of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India which would ensure selection of proper and competent people to man these high offices of trust and help to build up reputation and acceptability of the Tribunal. 15. The question as to whether the members of the administrative services could be appointed as members of the Central Administrative Tribunal or Vice-Chairman was answered in the affirmative. Vires of Section 6(2)(a)(b)(bb) and (c) were upheld. 16. This question was again considered in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 SCC 261, by a Seven-Judge Constitution Bench. In this case as well an argument was raised that the appointment of Administrative Members to Administrative Tribunals be stopped. The Court observed that it was difficult to accept such a contention since setting up of these Tribunals is founded on the premise that specialist bodies comprising of both trained administrators and those with judicial experience would by virtue of their specialised knowledge be better equipped to dispense speedy and efficient justice. The Court held: We are also required to address the issue of the competence of those who man the Tribunals and the question of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court would ensure that Administrative Members would be chosen from amongst those who had the requisite background to deal with the cases coming up before the Tribunal. 18. In view of the observations of this Court in S.P. Sampath and L. Chandra Kumar cases (supra ) the High Court was not right in observing that henceforth the appointment of Vice-Chairman should be made from amongst the persons mentioned in of Section 6(2)(a) of the Act alone. The findings recorded by the High Court run contrary to the law laid down by this Court. 19. For the reasons stated above, the Civil appeals are accepted, the interim order dated 25th February, 2002 which merged with the final order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the High Court are set aside. The stay granted by the High Court is vacated. The authorities would be at liberty to make appointment as per selection made which would of course be subject to the final result of the writ petition by the High Court. 20. Since the High Court did not decide the inter se dispute between writ petitioner Shri Shambhu Dayal and Shri V.K. Majotra, respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, we remit the case back to the High Court for decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
