SHANKER RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the Petitioner purports to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to note the relevant facts and reliefs sought for in the petition.

(2.) The material facts which are essential to mention are very few and they lie within a narrow compass. Shri Shanker Raju, the Petitioner, was appointed as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") on 10.12.2000. After completion of his five-year term, he was reappointed for another term of five years and was due to complete his second term of five years on 09.12.2010. In April, 2010, in response to an advertisement issued by the Respondent regarding vacancies of Members in the Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, he made application for the post of Judicial Member of the Tribunal, the post which he had held for nine and a half years at the time of making application. Though the Petitioner was eligible for the appointment in terms of his qualification, the Respondent refused to consider his claim for appointment for the vacancy, for the reason that the Petitioner would complete his second term of 5 years on 09.12.2010 as a Judicial Member of the Tribunal vide the impugned communication dated 12-08-2010. The main premise of the Petitioners challenge of the said communication is that after completion of a tenure of 10 years, he is eligible to apply for the post afresh and must be considered on merits for his appointment as a Member of the Tribunal and should not be disqualified for appointment merely because he has completed 10 years in that office. The Petitioner seeks appropriate writ from this Court mainly in respect of the communication dated 12.08.2010 and for a direction to the Respondent to consider his case for appointment to the post of Member (J) in Tribunal advertised vide D.O. No. A1103/9/2010-AT dated 20.04.2010 on its own merit sans eligibility.

(3.) The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended in the year 2006 by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act 2006. The amendments were made effective from 19.02.2007. Some of the principal changes brought about, which are relevant for the purpose of the case are, the abolition of the post of Vice-Chairman; changes in the terms of office in the form of increase in the age of superannuation of the Chairman from 65 years to 68 years and that of the other Members from 62 years to 65 years; the term of the Members was fixed to 5 years, extendable by another term of 5 years; and, incorporation of Section 10A as a savings clause, for saving the term of office of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members, who were appointed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act.