Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nelson Sailo, J.
Central Administrative Tribunal and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Through its Secretary and Others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4946 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Quo Warranto - Appointment of Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 - The court discussed the relevant provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, and the Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021. The court emphasized the procedure for making recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the criteria for shortlisting candidates for the post of Chairman. The court also highlighted the importance of adjudicatory experience and the role of the Central Government in making appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, alleging non-compliance with the relevant provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, and the Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a case for interference, as none of the unsuccessful applicants challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 to the post. The court emphasized the role of the Search-cum-Selection Committee in making recommendations and the importance of adjudicatory experience in the selection process.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with the procedure for making recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the criteria for shortlisting candidates for the post of Chairman.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not make out a case for interference, emphasizing that none of the unsuccessful applicants challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 to the post. The court also highlighted the importance of adjudicatory experience and the role of the Central Government in making appointments.
Final Decision: The writ petition failed and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Nelson Sailo, J.
Heard Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Mahanta for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI), assisted by Mr. CKS Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) who submits that he will be representing all the respondents including the respondent No. 4.
2. Although the matter is listed in the motion column today, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, against the writ petition filed on 30.07.2022, have filed their counter affidavit. The petitioners in response to the counter affidavit have also filed their affidavit-in-reply on 24.08.2022.
3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASGI submits that as the pleadings are complete and importantly, in view of the issue involved, the matter may be taken up for final disposal. Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that as the respondent No. 4 has not been served notice, the same may be done so as not to prejudice him. To this submission, the learned ASGI submits that since the respondent No. 4 has already joined as the Chairman of the CAT, Guwahati Bench, he can represent the respondent No. 4 as well. In view of such submission and as the parties have already made their respective submissions to some extent, Court has decided to some extent, Court has decided to proceed with the matter and hear the counsels for the rival parties for final disposal of the case.
4. Petitioner No. 1 is the CAT, Guwahati Bench, Bar Association while the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the said Association. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:—
a) A writ in the nature of Quo-warranto shall not issue declaring respondent No. 4 is not entitle to hold the post of the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal
b) A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not issue for setting aside and quashing the order of appointment dated 29.07.2022
c) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the SCSC to recommend incumbents strictly in term of Act of 2021 and Rules of 2021
d) A writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forebear from giving effect to the impugned order of appointment dated 29.07.2022
e) Call for the records of recommendation of the SCSC to see as to whether any application form without mandatory information as sought in the prescribed form and without being accompanied by the requisite documents as required under the prescribed form has been entertained and considered and if it has been considered to quash and set aside the same.
f) Direct the respondents to exclude the incomplete applications forms as mandated by the rules and a specific term of advertisement dated 04.04.2022 and to hold/make selection/recommendation afresh strictly in terms of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 framed thereunder by giving requisite preference to the existing Acting Chairman and Members having sufficient adjudicatory experience who had applied for the post of Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal.
g) Pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.”
INTERIM RELIEF as prayed for:
Pending final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court pleased to : Stay the order of appointment order dated 29.07.2022
Grounds of Interim Relief
If the aforesaid interim relief as prayed for is not granted, great injustice would be caused to the applicants for ignoring their significant experience in Central Administrative Tribunal as required additional weightage of the past services as mandated under Rule 2(2) of the Rules of 2021.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY B
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 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....
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 selection of NCLAT Technical Members must adhere to statutory qualifications, and courts cannot substitute the decisions of expert committees unless serious misconduct is alleged.
The court holds that it cannot interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee unless there is arbitrariness or statutory aberration. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining t....
The selection committee's discretion in assessing candidates based on Annual Confidential Reports and service particulars is valid, and the writ court's role is to ensure lawful decision-making.
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.
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
