Sandeep Kumar V. The Union of India through the Secretary Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 and The Secretary Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, North Block, New Delhi- 110001

CWJC/538/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Kumar, the petitioner, challenging the appointment procedure for Vice-Chairmen and Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the Union of India. The challenge was based on the argument that the procedure lacked objectivity as it did not include interviews, relying solely on the bio-data of candidates. The petitioner referenced a Delhi High Court order suggesting that similar appointments should involve interviews to ensure objectivity and compliance with constitutional provisions. However, the High Court of Patna dismissed the writ application, supporting the existing procedure as reasonable and not in violation of the Constitution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803536 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. B. Krishna Mohan
• Laws Referred To: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAJID KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P N SHAHI
• Keywords: Interview; Objectivity; Administrative Tribunals; Appointment Procedure; Vice-Chairmen and Members; Subjectivity; Bio-data
• Section: 14; 36; 16

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.538 of 2010 1. SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHAHI R/O 'GEETA SADAN', MOHALLA- PARK-ROAD, P.S.- KADAM KUAN, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. P.N.Shahi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate. (Central Government Counsel) ====== 7. 15.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. In compliance of my order dated 19.02.2010 and 08.03.2010 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 Rule 4,5(i) of the Rules. The selection process is conducted twice in a year on the basis of the vacancies - 2 - 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 websites 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 along with 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 - 3 - case of Union of India Vs. 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. 4. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. The Committee while considering the application for appointment on the post of Vice Chairman, Member of Central Administrative Tribunal consider the bio-data of the candidate which reflect the personality, background and potential of the candidate and enable the Committee to assess the suitability of the candidate for the post of Vice- Chairman and Member. The procedure devised by the Committee in terms of the appointment rules to consider the bio-data of the applicant does not appear to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. I find no merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. A.F.R. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.) "