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 the Tribunal.

ORDER :

Admit.

2. Assistant Solicitor General of India takes notice for the first respondent. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 to 4. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 5 and 6.

3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Renjith Thampan for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Ashok M. Cherian for respondents 2 to 4 on the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief.

4. In this proceedings, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notification issued by the sixth respondent Selection Committee for selection of Judicial Members in the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) established under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act). By way of interim order, the petitioner seeks stay of operation of Ext.P3 notification and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

5. In anticipation of the vacancies of two Judicial Members, the sixth respondent issued Ext.P3 notification on 01.07.2021. The petitioner who is a practising lawyer is stated to be an aspirant for appointment as Judicial Member in the Tribunal. The main ground on which the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notification is that Rule 3(2) of the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 (the Rules), to the extent it provides for inclusion of persons from executive offices of the State in the Selection Committee is ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner challenges the notification also on the ground that the Selection Committee that issued the notification is not one constituted in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Rules. In terms of Rule 3(2), the Selection Committee shall consist of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned State, the Chief Secretary of the concerned State, the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal of the concerned State and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission of the concerned State. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the office of the Chairman of the Tribunal fell vacant on 15.9.2020, the vacancy is yet to be filled up, and since the Tribunal does not have a Chairman, the Chief Justice, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee directed inclusion of the Acting Chairman of the Tribunal in the Selection Committee and the selection process was initiated accordingly based on the decision of the Selection Committee in which the duly appointed Chairman of the Tribunal is not a member. According to the petitioner, the selection for appointment of Members of the Tribunal can be made only by a Selection Committee in which the duly appointed Chairman of the Tribunal is also a member and that the Member of the Tribunal who is authorised only to act as the Chairman of the Tribunal, cannot substitute the Chairman of the Tribunal in the Selection Committee.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the light of Section 10-B of the Act, the Rules stands impliedly repealed and a selection cannot, therefore, be made based on the repealed Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the said circumstances, if the selection for appointment of Members in the Tribunal is to be made, it can be made only in terms of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017. Alternatively, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the State and the State Public Service Commission are the stakeholders in the majority of the matters that are dealt with by the Tribunal, and if the Members of the Tribunal are selected by a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State and the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission as provided for in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, the independence of the Tribunal which is a constitutional mandate cannot be ensured. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another, 2020 KHC 6662, in support of the said submission. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that even if it i