2008 (7) TMI 674 - Tri - Indian Laws

CESTAT Member - Eligibility therefor - Computation of Age - Statutory rules vis-a-vis notification - Interpretation of statutes

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for the post of Judicial Member in CESTAT.
2. Interpretation of the cut-off date for age eligibility.
3. Application of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. The binding nature of judicial precedents on administrative authorities.
5. Validity of the selection process based on the disputed cut-off date.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria for the Post of Judicial Member in CESTAT:
The applicant, a practicing advocate, challenged the advertisement dated 3-9-2007 inviting applications for the post of Judicial Member in CESTAT. The applicant sought consideration for selection, claiming eligibility based on his age as of the cut-off date.

2. Interpretation of the Cut-off Date for Age Eligibility:
The advertisement specified the cut-off date for age eligibility as 1-1-2007. However, the applicant argued that his age should be calculated based on the date of publication of the advertisement, which was 3-9-2007, making him eligible as he turned 45 on 18-10-2007. The Tribunal noted that the previous advertisement in 2006 did not specify a cut-off date, leading to confusion.

3. Application of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The applicant's counsel argued that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which prescribes the commencement and termination of time, should apply. The counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma, which interpreted similar stipulations to exclude the date of publication. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the date of publication (3-9-2007) should be excluded, making the last date for receipt of applications 18-10-2007, when the applicant had already turned 45.

4. The Binding Nature of Judicial Precedents on Administrative Authorities:
The Tribunal emphasized that decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate courts and administrative authorities. The Tribunal cited several cases, including Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, to assert that the ratio decidendi of Supreme Court decisions must be followed. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., which supported the exclusion of the first day in computing time periods.

5. Validity of the Selection Process Based on the Disputed Cut-off Date:
The Tribunal found the respondents' interpretation of the cut-off date as 17-10-2007 to be incorrect and arbitrary. The Tribunal held that the selection process, which excluded the applicant based on this erroneous cut-off date, was unjustifiable and illegal. The Tribunal set aside the selection process and directed the respondents to hold a fresh selection process, considering the applicant as eligible based on the correct interpretation of the cut-off date.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the applicant's challenge, setting aside the selection process for the post of Judicial Member in CESTAT due to the incorrect computation of the cut-off date for age eligibility. The Tribunal directed a fresh selection process, ensuring the applicant's eligibility based on the correct interpretation of the time period as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.