2011 (1) TMI 1082 - SC - Indian Laws

Term of service - Petitioner after completion of his five-year term was reappointed for another term of five years and was due to complete his second term of five years - response to an advertisement issued by the respondent regarding vacancies made application for the post of Judicial Member of the Tribunal, the post which he had held for nine and a half years at the time of making application refused for appointment for the vacancy, for the reason that the petitioner would complete his second term of 5 years as a Judicial Member of the Tribunal vide the impugned communication - main premise of the petitioner s challenge of the said communication is that after completion of a tenure of 10 years, he is eligible to apply for the post afresh and must be considered on merits for his appointment as a Member of the Tribunal and should not be disqualified for appointment merely because he has completed 10 years in that office - Held that - Plea that Section 10A, which restricts the total term of the Member of the Administrative Tribunal to ten years should be regarded as unconstitutional has also no substance at all. The age of retirement of a Government servant has been raised from 58 years to 60 years. Initially under the unamended provisions of the Act a retired Government servant had a tenure of only two years as a Member of the Tribunal and it was noticed that he was not able to contribute much while performing duties as a Member of the Tribunal. It was felt necessary that every Member of the Tribunal should have a tenure of five years. Therefore, the provisions relating to term of office incorporated in Section 8 of the Act were amended in the year 1987 and provision was made fixing term of office of Chairman, Vice-chairman and Members at five years period statement made by learned senior counsel that we need to place our interpretation on the provisions of the Amended Act, which further principles of Judicial independence. Passage from the book, referred to by the learned senior counsel, pertains to the legal system in American Courts and Hybrid Tribunals, which has nothing to do with our legal system. Secondly, the statement relied on by the learned senior counsel is an extract from the book of a jurist, which has neither any persuasive value nor legal binding on us. If the suggestion made by an American author suits our legal system, it is for the Legislature to take note of it, the doctrine of independence of judiciary has nothing to do when the tenure is fixed by a statute , no merit in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Petition dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for reappointment as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal after completing a ten-year term.
2. Interpretation of Section 8 and Section 10A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as amended by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006.
3. Doctrine of Stare Decisis and its application in the present case.
4. Constitutional validity of the amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Reappointment:
The petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, sought reappointment after completing a ten-year term. Despite being eligible in terms of qualifications, the respondent refused the application based on the completion of the maximum term of ten years as per the amended provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that after completing a tenure of ten years, he should be considered afresh for the post without disqualification solely due to the completion of ten years in office.

2. Interpretation of Section 8 and Section 10A:
Section 8 of the Act, as amended, provides that the term of office for a Member of the Tribunal is five years, extendable by another five years, with a maximum age limit of 65 years. Section 10A, a savings clause, governs the terms and conditions of service for those appointed before the amendment. The Court interpreted these sections to mean that a Member can hold office for a maximum of ten years and is ineligible for reappointment after this period. The term "extendable" signifies that the tenure can be extended if both parties agree, but the total tenure cannot exceed ten years.

3. Doctrine of Stare Decisis:
The doctrine of stare decisis, which means to stand by decisions and not disturb settled matters, was emphasized. The Court noted that a judgment holding the field for a long time should not be unsettled. Previous decisions, such as A.K. Behra v. Union of India, which upheld the amendments to the Act, were binding. The Court reiterated the importance of consistency and certainty in judicial decisions, emphasizing that the law declared by a larger bench is binding on a division bench.

4. Constitutional Validity of Amendments:
The amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, were previously challenged in A.K. Behra's case, where the validity was upheld by a majority decision. The Court in the present case found no reason to depart from this precedent. The amendments, including the ten-year maximum tenure for Members, were deemed constitutional and not arbitrary. The Court held that the legislative intent was clear and unambiguous, and it was not the role of the judiciary to question the wisdom or policy of the legislature.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent's decision to refuse the petitioner's reappointment based on the completion of the maximum ten-year term. The judgment emphasized the clear legislative intent, the binding nature of previous decisions, and the importance of maintaining consistency and certainty in judicial interpretations. The Court appreciated the assistance of the Amicus Curiae in understanding the nuances of the case.