Order
1. In these petitions for review the learned Attorney General of India urges that certain observations and conclusions expressed in the individual judgments of Bhagwati, C.J 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, C.J 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-Chairman and Administrative Members of the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Chief Justice said that the appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Administrative Tribunal should be made by the Government concerned 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 concerned 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 Selection 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 to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
2. The second contention of the learned Attorney General is that the observations of Bhagwati, C.J that for the appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal, besides a District Judge an advocate who is qualified 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 required 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 Administrative 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, C.J in his judgment.
3. The learned Attorney General then prays that the time fixed in the judgment for setting up additional Benches of 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.
4. The learned Attorney General also prays that time may be extended up to July 31, 1987 for introducing legislation to give effect to the observations made by the court in these cases. We grant time accordingly.
5. The review petitions stand disposed of.
(Before R.S Pathak, C.J and E.S Venkataramiah, G.L Oza, M.M Dutt and M.H Kania, JJ.)
(Record of Proceedings)
S.P SAMPATH KUMAR AND OTHERS (III) . . Petitioners; . . Appellants;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . Respondents.
(For extension of time)
Order in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 18501 of 1987 (RPs Nos. 520-23 of 1987, WPs Nos. 12437-60 of 1985, 238 of 1986 & TCs Nos. 9-13 of 1986)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
K. Parasaran, A.G and Ms A. Subashini, Advocate, for the Petitioners/Appellants;
Raju Ramachandran, P.H Parekh and M.K.S Menon, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Order
Having regard to the facts placed before us by the learned Attorney General of India, we grant time up to October 31, 1987 to the Union of India for introducing legislation either in Parliament or through a Presidential Ordinance in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated December 9, 1986 pronounced by this Court as clarified by it by its order dated May 5, 1987. The civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
Court Master
[Before R.S Pathak, C.J and E.S Venkataramiah, Ranganath Misra, G.L Oza and M.M Dutt, JJ.]
(Record of Proceedings)
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 27037 of 1987 (in RPs Nos. 520-23 of 1987, WPs Nos. 12437-60 of 1985, 238 of 1986, TCs Nos. 9-13 of 1986)
S.P SAMPATH KUMAR AND OTHERS (IV) . . Petitioners; . . Appellants;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . Respondents.
(For directions & CMP No. 27468 of 1987)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
K. Parasaran, A.G and Ms A. Subashini, Advocate, for the Petitioners/Appellants;
P.H Parekh and Ms Rohini Chhabra, R. Ramachandran, Ms Sadhana Ramachandran, B.D Sharma and S.K Sinha, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Order
In view of what has been stated before us by the learned Attorney General of India, we extend the time granted to the Union of India up to January 31, 1988 for introducing necessary changes in the statute through legislative enactment in Parliament or by issuing a Presidential Ordinance. We trust it will not be necessary now for the Union of India to seek any further extension of time as this matter has been pending for a long time. The civil miscellaneous petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Court Master