(1) IN these petitions for review the learned Attorney General of India urges that certain observations and conclusions expressed in the individual judgments of Bhagwati, C. J. 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, C. J. 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-Chairman 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 bemade 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 beaded 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