Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Navneet Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 20919 of 2021)
Decided on : 05-05-2022
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 6(3) – Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 – Rule 9 – Non-extension of term of appointment as a Judicial Member – Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of Apex Court recommended extension of respondent as Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal for another term – Said recommendation was approved by Chief Justice of India – Thereafter, additional material surfaced which was placed before Selection Committee by Competent Authority for seeking review of earlier decision – Conscious decision was taken by Selection Committee not to recommend extension of tenure of respondent – Decision taken by Selection Committee was duly approved by Chief Justice of India – High Court committed error in holding that recommendation made by Selection Committee to carry forward vacancies to year 2017 was set aside by High Court, in its earlier order dated 08.05.2019 – Setting aside order of Department of Personnel and Training cannot be understood as recommendation of Selection Committee being set aside – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Respondent’s request for extension of the term of appointment as a Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal by another term was rejected by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (“ACC”) on 11.10.2019. The same was communicated to respondent on 24.10.2019. A writ petition was filed by respondent before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was allowed by the High Court on 27.08.2021. Thus, this appeal has been filed by appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
ACC did not take any decision contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Pursuant to direction issued by High Court on 08.05.2019, order passed on 11.10.2019 by the ACC is neither contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee nor in violation of the directions issued by High Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Leave granted.
1. The respondent's request for extension of the term of appointment as a Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal by another term was rejected by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (for short "ACC") on 11.10.2019. The same was communicated to the respondent on 24.10.2019. A writ petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was allowed by the High Court on 27.08.2021. Thus, this appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court.
2. It is necessary to refer to the relevant facts that have led to the filing of this appeal. On 19.05.2011, the respondent was approved by the competent authority to be appointed as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 30.05.2011, the respondent was appointed as a Judicial Member for a period of five years from the date of assumption of charge or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. He assumed charge as a Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on 28.6.2011. In 2013, the respondent was transferred to Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at his request. Rules 9 and 10 were inserted in The Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 (for short "2011 Rules") by way of an amendment dated 21st March 2014. Rule 9 relates to the extension of term of appointment of a member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. A representation was made by the respondent on 21.12.2015 requesting for extension of his term as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the 2011 Rules. The Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, by a letter dated 21.12.2015, sent a proposal to Department of Personnel and Training (for short "DoPT") for extension of the term of the respondent. The proposal of the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal along with the report received from the Intelligence Bureau were placed before the Selection Committee on 19.02.2016. The Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of this Court recommended extension of the term of the respondent. The said recommendation was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on 08.03.2016.
4. On 01.06.2016, the ACC requested the DoPT to re-examine the proposal for extension of the term of the respondent in light of the additional material that had surfaced. The DoPT submitted its remarks and thereafter, the ACC returned the proposal for extension of term of respondent on 06.03.2017. The decision of the ACC was placed before the Selection Committee which was headed by a sitting Judge of this Court on 11.03.2017. The Selection Committee, took note of the decision of the ACC for returning the proposal for extension of term of the respondent, and recommended that the existing vacancies be carried forward to the next vacancy year, i.e. 2017. The decision of the Selection Committee was approved by the Chief Justice of India on 06.04.2017. DoPT, by a letter dated 12.04.2017, informed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal about the decision of the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. The Committee recommended that both the vacancies may be carried forward to the next year i.e. 2017.
5. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to issue appointment order for extension of his term as per Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The High Court, by a judgment dated 08.05.2019, allowed the said writ petition and set aside: (i) the order dated 06.03.2017 by which the respondent was informed that the ACC has returned the proposal for extension of the term of the respondent; and (ii) order dated 12.04.2017 by which DoPT informed the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal about the decision by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Th
Conscious decision was taken by Selection Committee not to recommend extension of tenure of Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal, cannot be interfered with.
when a recommendation is made by the Selection Committee comprising of such high ranking officials and even constitutional functionary, there has to be a very strong and justifiable reason to decline....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial dominance in the Selection Committee and the need to maintain the judicial primacy over the appointment process for th....
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of apparent error and does not extend to reinstating employment post-candidature cancellation due to delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adjudicatory experience and the role of the Search-cum-Selection Committee in making recommendations for the appointment of the C....
The failure to file a delay condonation application renders an original application before the Tribunal non-maintainable, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of tenure stability and judicial independence in determining the commencement date of re-appointment, emphasizing that a judge shoul....
Courts will not entertain pleas for extension of tenures when members have accepted initial appointments and when such extension would interfere with ongoing selection processes.
The power to recommend termination of a judicial officer's services rests with the Full Court of the High Court, and the Standing Committee does not have the authority to make such recommendations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
