SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHAHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India.

(2.) In compliance of my order dated 19.2.2010 and 8.3.2010 counsel for the Union of India has filed supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 placing on record the notification dated 6th March, 2006 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, whereunder Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Vice- Chairmen and Members) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") has been notified in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). With reference to the provisions contained in the aforesaid Rules it is submitted by the counsel for the Union of India that the Vice-Chairmen and the Members of the Administrative Tribunals are appointed by a Committee comprising of sitting Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India, Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of "Law and Justice as per the provisions contained in Rules 4, 5(i) of the Rules. The selection process is conducted twice in a year on the basis of the vacancies arising for a block of six months i.e. January to June and July to December of each calendar year. As per Rule 5(i) of the Rules the Committee shall devise its own procedure or lay guidelines for inviting applications for appointment on the post of Vice-Chairman and the Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The advertisement for the aforesaid appointment is made in the newspaper which has all India circulation, the notice is also circulated in all High Courts as well as on the web-sites of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The applications received as per the criteria laid down in Section 6(b) of the Act alongwith bio-data of the candidates is forwarded to the Committee and the Committee having considered the application(s) and the bio-data received recommend to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India who forwards the recommendation to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the appointment is made with the approval of the President of India.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner assails the aforesaid procedure for appointment on the ground of lack of objectivity in the manner of appointment as the Committee considers the application and the bio-data received in a subjective manner without even asking the applicants to appear in the interview. The consideration of the bio- data alone according to learned counsel for the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as without asking the candidate to appear for interview the recommendation made is lacking in objectivity. Further without the benefit of interview the Committee has no idea about the potential and the background of the candidate in whose favour recommendation is made. Reference in this connection is made to the order dated 31st July, 2008 of Delhi High Court passed in the case of Union of India V/s. B. Krishna Mohan to suggest that for appointment on the post of Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal interview of the applicant is conducted by a Committee headed by Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court of India nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and appointment on the post of Vice-Chairman, Member of Central Administrative Tribunal should also be made after the applicants are subjected to interview failing which the procedure for such appointment devised by the Committee may be arbitrary infracting Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.