RAKESH PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the appointment of Shri N. S. Sethi as Chairman, State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that Shri N. S. Sethi was an I. A. S. Officer. He was appointed Vice-Chairman of State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh. On relinquishment of office of Chairman by Justice R. P. Awasthi on 3-7-1999, Shri Sethi was appointed Acting Chairman pending appointment of Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 1-9-1999, Shri Sethi has been appointed Chairman for a period of five years from the date of taking charge of the post or till he attains the age of 65 year or whichever is earlier.

(2.) THE petitioners submit that Shri N. S. Sethi has no legal or otherwise any judicial training so as to cloth him with any judicial discipline. It is only a judicial member with two years minimum experience on the post of Vice-Chairman who alone is eligible to be appointed on the post of Chairman of the Tribunal. Merely because Shri Sethi worked for a minimum period of two years as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, that would not qualify him to be appointed as Chairman of the Tribunal. This appointment is in total disregard of the observations of Apex Court in Sampat Kumar's case (1987 1 SCC 124), that ordinarily a retiring or a retired Chief Justice of the High Court or when such a person is not available, a senior Judge of proved ability either in office or retired should be appointed. Provisions relating to appointment of Chairman contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 have not been interpreted in the light of observations in Sampat Kumar's case and that there has not been meaningful or effective consultation with the Governor of the State or the Chief Justice of India while appointing Shri Sethi to the post of Chairman of the Tribunal. He was sponsored by the Chief Minister, the file processed through the office of the Governor without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers since it was never put up before it, therefore, the appointment is contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Alternatively, it is submitted that provisions contained in Section 6 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as amended by Act No. 51 of 1987 pursuant to the decision in Sampat Kumar's case are ultra-vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 323-A of the Constitution since they do not carry out the solemn assurance given to the Apex Court by the Union of India in Sampat Kumar's case and the pious hope expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court that sitting or retired Judge would be appointed Chairman of the Tribunal.

(3.) WE are not impressed by the submissions raised by the petitioners. The petitioners could not advance any justifiable ground for the delay in approaching this Court. Shri Sethi was appointed Chairman by order dated September 1, 1999. Continuously, he is working till date apart from working as Vice-Chairman for some time before taking up this assignment. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.