http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/05/1987

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 SCR  (3) 233        1987 SCC  Supl.  734  JT 1987 (2)   626        1987 SCALE  (1)1317

ACT:     Administrative   Tribunals  Act,  1985--Appointment   of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member of  Tribunal--Recruitment to be made by high-powered Selection Committees--An advocate qualified  to be a Judge of the High Court is  eligible  for appointment as Vice-Chairman, Member.

HEADNOTE:     In  these Review Petitions, the Attorney General  sought clarification of certain observations made in the individual judgments  delivered  on December 9, 1986 disposing  of  the Writ  Petitions  filed by the  petitioners  challenging  the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Disposing of the Review Petitions,     HELD:  1.  In  the case of recruitment  to  the  Central Administrative  Tribunal the appropriate course would be  to appoint  a  High  Powered Selection Committee  beaded  by  a sitting  Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated  by  the Chief Justice of India, while in the case of recruitment  to the  State Administrative Tribunals the High Powered  Selec- tion  Committee should be headed by a sitting Judge  of  the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the  High Court concerned. [234G-235A]     2.  The  contention that an advocate will not  have  the administrative experience which is required for a Member  of the Administrative Tribunal cannot be accepted. An  advocate who  is  qualified  to be a Judge of the High  Court  is  an advocate who by implication is qualified to perform not only the judicial duties but the administrative functions which a High Court Judge is expected to discharge. Whether an  advo- cate applying for recruitment to the Administrative Tribunal has sufficient administrative potential can be examined  and judged during the process of selection. [235B-D] (Time  fixed for introducing legislation to give  effect  to the obser- 234 vations made in the Judgment, and, for setting up Additional Benches  extended upto July 31, 1987 and December  31,  1987 respectively).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. 520.23of 1987. IN     Writ Petition Nos. 12437-12460 of 1985, 238 of 1986  and Transferred Cases Nos. 9-11, 12-13 of 1986.     K. Parasaran Attorney General and Ms. A. Subhashini  for the Petitioners.     P.H.  Parekh, Suhail Dutt, P.D. Sharma and R.  Ramachan- dran for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered:     In  these  petitions  for review  the  learned  Attorney General of India urges that certain observations and conclu- sions expressed in the individual Judgments of Bhagwati, CJI and  one of us (Ranganath Misra, J) appear to conflict  with each  other,  and prays that clarification be made.  In  the first place, he has drawn our attention to the  observations of  Bhagwati, CJI where the learned Chief Justice has  taken the view that one of the two alternative options was open to the Government while appointing the Chairman, a  Vice-Chair- man and administrative members of the Administrative  Tribu- nal. The learned Chief Justice said that the appointment  of Chairman,  Vice-Chairman and members of  the  Administrative Tribunal  should  be made by the concerned  government  only after  consultation  with the Chief Justice  of  India.  The alternative  suggestion  is that a  High  Powered  Selection Committee should be appointed headed by the Chief Justice of India  or a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or  the  con- cerned  High Court to be nominated by the Chief  Justice  of India.  In his Judgment our brother Ranganath Misra, J.  has opted  for  the latter alternative.  Having  considered  the matter  carefully,  we are of opinion that in  the  case  of recruitment  to  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  the appropriate course would be to appoint a High Powered Selec- tion  Committee  headed by a sitting Judge  of  the  Supreme Court  to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India,  while in  the  case  of recruitment to  the  State  Administrative Tribunals,  the High Powered Selection Committee  should  be headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court 235 to  be  nominated  by the Chief Justice of  the  High  Court concerned.     The second contention of the learned Attorney General is that the observations of Bhagwati, CJI that for the appoint- ment  to  the post of Vice-Chairman  of  the  Administrative Tribunal, besides a District Judge an Advocate who is quali- fied to be a Judge of the High Court should also be regarded as  eligible, calls for reconsideration because an  Advocate will  not  have the administrative experience which  is  re- quired  for a member of the Administrative Tribunal. We  are unable  to  accept the contention. In the  first  place,  an Advocate who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court is an  Advocate who by implication is qualified to perform  not only  the judicial duties but the  administrative  functions which a High Court Judge is expected to discharge. Secondly, whether an Advocate applying for recruitment to the Adminis- trative Tribunal has sufficient administrative potential can be examined and judged during the process of selection.  We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the observations made by Bhagwati, CJI in his Judgment.     The  Learned Attorney General then prays that  the  time fixed  in the Judgment for setting up additional Benches  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the  Administrative Tribunal should be extended to  December 31, 1987. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the administrative requirements of the situation, we have no hesitation in granting the time prayed for.     The learned Attorney General also prays that time may be extended  upto July 31, 1987 for introducing legislation  to give  effect to the observations made by the Court in  these cases. We grant time accordingly. The Review Petitions stand disposed of. P.S.S.                                             Petitions disposed of. 236