JUDGMENT

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - :—This group of cases arise out of the judgment/order dated 29-7-1993 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1102/91 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). The three petitioners before the High Court were working on the post of Inspectors in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh. They sought to challenge the Constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal (in short SAT) as well as the appointments of the Vice-Chairman and members of the Tribunal as the Government had not complied with the direction of this Court given in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124 : AIR 1987 SC 386 to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter alluded to as the Act) as suggested by it and had not made the appointments after selection by a High Powered Selection Committee as directed by the Court. They stated that they could not obtain a copy of the appointment letter of the aforesaid persons. They prayed for Writ of Quo Warranto to show under what authority they were functioning and or a declaration that the constitution of SAT was null and void. The respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were Members of the SAT and respondent No. 7 was its Vice-Chairman. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh, respectively. The High Court quashed the appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 by the impugned judgment dated 29-7-1993. The respondents Nos. 3 to 6 jointly challenge the judgment in Civil Appeal No 5061 of 1993. The appeal filed by the respondent No 7 is Civil Appeal No. 5062 of 1993. The Union of India also challenges the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7486 of 1993. The Industrial & Labour Bar Association, Bhopal and another who claim to have been intervenors before the High Court have come up with a special leave petition (Civil) No. 17232 of 1993. We grant them special relief.

2. Shri R. P. Kapoor, whose appointment as Vice-Chairman and S/Shri Dr. Narinder Nath Veermani R. M. Rajwade, G. S. Patel and S. S. Lamba whose appointments as Members were set aside by the High Court are referred to in this judgment as the appellants whereas the three police officers who filed the writ petition before the High Court are being referred to as the original petitioners.

3. The main reason for setting aside the appointments was the alleged failure on the part of the Government to select the candidates for the posts of members and Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal through a High Powered Selection Committee as directed by this Court in S. P. Sampath Kumars case (AIR 1987 SC 386), (supra) and in the review petitions filed subsequently, vide (1987) Supp SCC 734 and 735. By the judgment in S. P. Sampath kumars case, (supra) certain directions were issued to the Union of India to introduce legislative changes to cure the defects in the procedure for appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Tribunal. An amendment was made in Section 6 of the Act purportedly in compliance with the direction of this Court. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the amendment was not in conformity with the direction of this Court and did not suffice to ensure the validity of the appointments challenged in the writ petition before it. The appeals were heard by a bench of this Court consisting of M. M. Puchhi, S.C. Agrawal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. By an order dated 3-5-1994 the Court referred the matters to the Constitution Bench on the observation that they raised questions of general importance involving the interpretation of the provisions of Section 6, as amended by Act 51 of 1987 as well as the validity of the appointments made in accordance with the said provisions and the issues affect the constitution of the CAT and the SAT.

4. On the pleadings and submissions made before the High Court the points arising for determination came to be formulated in paragraph 7 of the judgment. These comprised preliminary objections as to (i) bar of jurisdiction in view of