TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 (3) TMI 643 - SUPREME COURT] which was part of the ROJER MATHEW VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. OTHERS [ 2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT] batch, and proceeded to record that the said interim order mandated that all appointments made pursuant to the selection by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall abide by the conditions of service as per the old Act and the Rules. Thus, it is evident that the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the interim orders passed in Rojer Mathew as subsequently recorded in MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. [ 2020 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] . The petitioner has completely failed to establish that the appointments are contrary to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to paragraph 224 of the judgment in Rojer Mathew wherein the court held as under:- 224. As the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 have been struck down and several directions have been issued vide the majority judgment for framing of fresh set of rules, we, as an interim order, direct the appointments to the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal and the terms and conditions of appointment shall be in terms of the respective statutes before the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2017. However, liberty is granted to the Union of India to seek modification of this order after they have framed fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders passed therein and the appointments made after the judgment made of Rojer Mathew (supra) like the appointments made prior to the 2017 Rules, are no doubt, to be governed by the then existing parent Acts and Rules. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra), appointments made during the pendency of the case in this Court are also to be governed by the parent Acts and Rules and the clarifications issued by this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra).... Finally, in paragraph 53 (xi), it was held as under: (xi) Appointments made prior to the 2017 Rules are governed by the parent Acts and Rules which established the concerned Tribunals. In view of the interim orders passed by the Court in Rojer Mathew (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding consideration before the Supreme Court. The express language of both paragraph 224 of Rojer Mathew and paragraphs 52 and 53 (xi) of Madras Bar Association-II indicate otherwise. Upon examining the aforesaid paragraphs, it leaves no room for doubt that the interim directions would apply to all appointments made prior to the 2020 Rules. In all such cases, the Supreme Court mandated that the governing statute and Rules framed thereunder would be applicable until the 2020 Rules came into effect. The present appointment made on 22.01.2020 is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's interim orders and dictum. The petitioner has completely failed to establish that the appointments are contrary to the relevant parent Act or the rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
