UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was allowed for the reason that the denial of appointment to the writ petitioner as Presiding Officer of the National Highways Tribunal is arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, a writ of mandamus was issued to offer appointment to the petitioner against the available vacancy without any further delay.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present writ petition are that in terms of the "Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002" (for short 'the Act') the National Highways Tribunal was established under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the National Highways Tribunal (Procedure for Appointment as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules') were framed. Such Rules contemplate appointment of the Presiding Officers on the basis of Selection Committee which is to be chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court, as nominated by the Chief Justice of India.

(3.) ANOTHER advertisement was issued on 21.06.2007 for appointment of 7 Presiding Officers of the National Highways Tribunal in which the petitioner had again applied. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee. The Government of India on 29.08.2008 sought consent of the petitioner for appointment at a place anywhere in India. The petitioner did convey his acceptance. The appointment was not made except in the case of Shri Gyan Chandra, who was appointed at National Highways Tribunal, Lucknow