S.P.
Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors [1987] INSC 149 (5 May 1987)
PATHAK,
R.S. (CJ) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT,
M.M. (J) CITATION: 1987 SCR (3) 233 1987 SCC Supl. 734 JT 1987 (2) 626 1987
SCALE (1)1317
ACT:
Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985--Appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member of
Tribunal--Recruitment to be made by high-powered Selection Committees--An
advocate qualified to be a Judge of the High Court is eligible for appointment
as Vice-Chairman, Member.
HEADNOTE:
In
these Review Petitions, the Attorney General sought clarification of certain
observations made in the individual judgments delivered on December 9, 1986
disposing of the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the vires
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Disposing
of the Review Petitions,
HELD:
1. In the case of recruitment to the Central Administrative Tribunal the
appropriate course would be to appoint a High Powered Selection Committee
beaded by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief
Justice of India, while in the case of recruitment to the State Administrative
Tribunals the High Powered Selec- tion Committee should be headed by a sitting
Judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court
concerned. [234G-235A]
2.
The contention that an advocate will not have the administrative experience
which is required for a Member of the Administrative Tribunal cannot be
accepted. An advocate who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court is an
advocate who by implication is qualified to perform not only the judicial
duties but the administrative functions which a High Court Judge is expected to
discharge. Whether an advocate applying for recruitment to the Administrative
Tribunal has sufficient administrative potential can be examined and judged
during the process of selection. [235B-D] (Time fixed for introducing
legislation to give effect to the observations made in the Judgment, and, for
setting up Additional Benches extended upto July 31, 1987 and December 31, 1987
respectively).
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. 520.23of 1987.
IN
Writ Petition Nos. 12437-12460 of 1985, 238 of 1986 and Transferred Cases Nos.
9-11, 12-13 of 1986.
K.
Parasaran Attorney General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Petitioners. P.H.
Parekh, Suhail Dutt, P.D. Sharma and R. Ramachan- dran for the Respondents.
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
In
these petitions for review the learned Attorney General of India urges that certain
observations and conclusions expressed in the individual Judgments of Bhagwati,
CJI and one of us (Ranganath Misra, J) appear to conflict with each other, and
prays that clarification be made. In the first place, he has drawn our attention
to the observations of Bhagwati, CJI where the learned Chief Justice has taken
the view that one of the two alternative options was open to the Government
while appointing the Chairman, a Vice-Chair- man and administrative members of
the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Chief Justice said that the
appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members of the Administrative
Tribunal should be made by the concerned government only after consultation
with the Chief Justice of India. The alternative suggestion is that a High
Powered Selection Committee should be appointed headed by the Chief Justice of
India or a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or the concerned High Court to be
nominated by the Chief Justice of India. In his Judgment our brother Ranganath
Misra, J. has opted for the latter alternative. Having considered the matter
carefully, we are of opinion that in the case of recruitment to the Central
Administrative Tribunal the appropriate course would be to appoint a High
Powered Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to
be nominated by the Chief Justice of India, while in the case of recruitment to
the State Administrative Tribunals, the High Powered Selection Committee should
be headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court 235 to be nominated by the Chief
Justice of the High Court concerned.
The
second contention of the learned Attorney General is that the observations of
Bhagwati, CJI that for the appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman of the
Administrative Tribunal, besides a District Judge an Advocate who is qualified
to be a Judge of the High Court should also be regarded as eligible, calls for
reconsideration because an Advocate will not have the administrative experience
which is required for a member of the Administrative Tribunal. We are unable to
accept the contention. In the first place, an Advocate who is qualified to be a
Judge of the High Court is an Advocate who by implication is qualified to
perform not only the judicial duties but the administrative functions which a
High Court Judge is expected to discharge. Secondly, whether an Advocate
applying for recruitment to the Administrative Tribunal has sufficient
administrative potential can be examined and judged during the process of
selection. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the observations
made by Bhagwati, CJI in his Judgment.
The
Learned Attorney General then prays that the time fixed in the Judgment for
setting up additional Benches of the Administrative Tribunal should be extended
to December 31, 1987. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the
administrative requirements of the situation, we have no hesitation in granting
the time prayed for.
The
learned Attorney General also prays that time may be extended upto July 31, 1987
for introducing legislation to give effect to the observations made by the
Court in these cases. We grant time accordingly.
The
Review Petitions stand disposed of. P.S.S. Petitions disposed of.
Back