2003 (9) TMI 790 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the panel prepared for the post of Vice-Chairman in various branches of the Central Administrative Tribunal ( the Tribunal ) in India and seeking for preparation of a fresh panel - Validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - HELD THAT - From the observations it is clear that this Court held that it was not desirable to stop the appointment of members of administrative services as administrative members to the Tribunal. Rather the judicious mix of Judicial Members and those with grass root experience would serve the purpose better for which the Tribunals were created. Contention that Tribunal should consist only of Judicial members was rejected and it was held that such a direction would attack the primary basis of the theory pursuant to which the Tribunals were constituted. It was observed that a Selection Committee which was headed by a sitting Judge of 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. In view of the observations of this Court in S.P. Sampath 1986 (12) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT and L. Chandra Kumar cases 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT 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. Thus 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. 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 decision in accordance with law. We would request the High Court to dispose of the matter at an early date and if possible within four months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this judgment. Since we are not deciding the dispute on merits and remitting the case back to the High Court for appropriate decision we refrain to go into merits of the dispute in writ petition and dismiss the same with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court if so advised. Appeals are allowed. No costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Qualification for the post of Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
2. Constitutional validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. High Court's jurisdiction and adherence to principles of natural justice.
4. Directions regarding appointments to other Tribunals.

Summary:

1. Qualification for the Post of Vice-Chairman of CAT:
The High Court of Allahabad held that only a sitting or retired High Court Judge or an advocate qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge could be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. This decision was challenged on the grounds that it was not raised in the pleadings nor argued before the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond the points raised by the parties and without striking down the relevant provisions of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Constitutional Validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Act:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 6 of the Act, claiming it was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court noted that the vires of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) were not challenged in the writ petition, and the High Court's direction effectively nullified these provisions without proper adjudication.

3. High Court's Jurisdiction and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for deciding on points not raised in the pleadings and for issuing directions without notifying the concerned and affected parties, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The High Court's directions were deemed unsustainable in law.

4. Directions Regarding Appointments to Other Tribunals:
The High Court issued directions that presiding officers of various other Tribunals, such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, should be from judicial backgrounds. The Supreme Court found this direction to be beyond the High Court's jurisdiction and contrary to the established law, which allows for a mix of judicial and administrative members in Tribunals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim and final orders, vacated the stay, and remitted the case back to the High Court for a decision in accordance with the law. The High Court was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The writ petition No. 398 of 2002 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court if so advised. Respondent No. 4, Shri D.C. Verma, was deleted from the array of parties as no relief was claimed against him. Appeals were allowed with no costs.