The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over service matters pertaining to members of the National Company Law Tribunal, as such members do not hold a 'civil post' and the NCLT functions as an independent quasi-judicial body.

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a. Quash and set aside the impugned Notification No. F. No. A-45011/534/2025-Ad.IV-MCA dated 16.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 1, ordering Respondent No. 2-Mr. Bachu Venkat Balaram Das to act as President of the National Company Law Tribunal consequent upon the completion of the term of Sh. Deep Chandra Joshi, for being violative statutory as well as constitutional provisions;

b. Declare that the applicant being the ‘Senior-most Member’ of the National Company Law Tribunal, shall act as President of the National Company Law Tribunal in terms of Section 415(1) read with 407 (c) of the Companies Act, 2013;

c. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper”

It is the case of the applicant that an offer of appointment as a Technical Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was given to the applicant by Respondent No. 1 on 11.09.2021 for a period of five years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till attaining the age of 65 years whichever is the earliest. Pursuant thereto, the applicant joined and assumed the office as a Technical Member of NCLT on 01.10.2021. On 10.10.2021, an offer of appointment as a Judicial Member of NCLT was given to the respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 1 for a period of five years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till attaining the age of 65 years whichever is earliest. He, in turn, assumed the office as a Judicial Member, NCLT on 18.10.2021. On 13.02.2026, vacancy arose for the post of President, NCLT on completion of term of office of the holder of such post. The senior most Member who was the Judicial Member, NCLT was ordered to act as the President in terms of Section 415 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The term of the then acting President was completed on 16.03.2026. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 16.03.2026 to the extent that the respondent no. 2 has been treated as the senior most Member, NCLT and has been ordered to act as President, NCLT in terms of provisions of Section 415(1) of the Act for a period of six months from 17.03.2026 or until a regular President is appointed or until further orders, whichever is the earliest. It is the case of the applicant that by virtue of the offer of appointment and also assumption of charge of the post, the applicant is senior to respondent no. 2 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act, he was required to be considered and ordered to act as the President, NCLT and not respondent no. 2.

Aggrieved by the impugned notification, the applicant had initially approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (C) No. 3509/2026 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had ordered notice on 18.03.2026. Subsequently, the WP is stated to have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.04.2026 to enable the applicant to avail alternative remedy. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the impugned order issued by respondent no. 1, having its office in New Delhi, has adversely affected the conditions of service of the applicant and, therefore, this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present OA.

Learned counsels who have appeared on behalf of the respondents have opposed the OA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the matter as well as on merit. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment dated 19.11.2025 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in WP(C) No. 1018/2021 titled Madras Bar Association vs Union of India & Anr. As the issue of jurisdiction has come for consideration, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate such issue before touching the merit of the claim.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the