UNION OF INDIA Vs. DAULAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of cases arise out of the judgment/order dated 29.7.1993 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1102 of 1991 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). The three petitioners before the High Court were working on the post of Inspectors in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh. They sought to challenge the constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'SAT') as well as the appointments of the Vice -Chairman and Members of the Tribunal as the Government had not complied with the -direction of this Court given in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 124] to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter alluded to as "the Act") as suggested by it and had not made the appointments after selection by a High Powered Selection Committee as directed by the Court. They stated that they could not obtain a copy of the appointment letter of the aforesaid persons. They prayed for writ of quo warranto to show under what authority they were functioning and for a declaration that the constitution of the SAT was null and void. Respondents 3 to 6 were Members of the SAT and Respondent 7 was its Vice -Chairman. Respondents 1 and 2 were the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh respectively. The High Court quashed the appointments of Respondents 3 to 7 by the impugned judgment dated 29.7.1993. Respondents 3 to 6 jointly challenged the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5061 of 1993. The appeal filed by Respondent 7 is Civil Appeal No. 5062 of 1993. The Union of India also challenges the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7486 of 1993. The Industrial and Labour Bar Association, Bhopal and another who claim to have been intervenors before the High Court have come up with a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17232 of 1993. We grant them special leave.

(2.) SHRI R.P. Kapur, whose appointment as Vice -Chairman and S/Shri Dr. Narinder Nath Veermani, R.M. Rajwade, G.S. Patel and S.S. Lamba whose appointments as Members were set aside by the High Court are referred to in this judgment as the appellants whereas the three police officers who filed the writ petition before the High Court are being referred to as the original petitioners.

(3.) ON the pleadings and submissions made before the High Court, the points arising for determination came to be formulated in para 7 of the judgment. These comprised preliminary objections as to (i) bar of jurisdiction in view of section 28 of the Act (ii) propriety of entertaining such a petition by disgruntled litigants in the guise of public interest litigation and (iii) locus standi of the petitioners. The other technical objection raised was in regard to the scope of a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. None of these objections was pressed before us. The High Court next considered the ambit and import of the observations made by this Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar case and in the subsequent orders emanating from that decision. Based on the import of the said observations the High Court went into the question whether the appointments of the Vice -Chairman and Members were validly made. The High Court on appreciation of the decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar and related cases came to the conclusion that the appointment of a High Powered Committee was a sine qua non under the said decisions and the mere fact that the Chief Justice of India had approved the appointments on the administrative side would not render the appointments valid. Detailing the procedure followed in the matter of selection, the High Court after referring to the notings in the department file held the same to be arbitrary and discriminatory and even went to the length of describing the same as 'murky', 'self -motivated' and 'biased' and in total violation of the procedure prescribed by the Government of India under its order of 15.4.1991 and consequently quashed the appointments. The petitions were allowed with cost quantified at Rs. 2,500.