Holding

For Central Administrative Tribunals the selection committee must be headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India; for State Tribunals it must be headed by a sitting High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, and an advocate qualified to be a High Court judge is eligible for Vice‑Chairman or member positions, with administrative potential assessable during selection.

Summary

The Supreme Court clarified the procedure for appointing members of Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It held that recruitment to the Central Administrative Tribunal must be overseen by a High‑Powered Selection Committee headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India, while recruitment to State Tribunals requires a committee headed by a sitting High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The Court rejected the contention that an advocate qualified to be a High Court judge lacks the administrative experience needed for the Vice‑Chairman or member posts, stating that such advocates are eligible and their administrative potential can be assessed during selection. The Court also granted extensions of time for setting up additional benches of the Administrative Tribunal until 31 December 1987 and for introducing legislation to give effect to its observations until 31 July 1987. The review petitions were consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate composition of the High‑Powered Selection Committee for recruitment to Central and State Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
Whether an advocate qualified to be a High Court judge is eligible for appointment as Vice‑Chairman or member of an Administrative Tribunal despite alleged lack of administrative experience?
Whether the time limits for setting up additional benches and for introducing implementing legislation should be extended?

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Subjects

Administrative TribunalsAppointmentSelection CommitteeEligibilityAdvocateHigh Court JudgeTime ExtensionReview PetitionSupreme Court

Judgment

~-.

S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR
A ).
v. ~

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
,.
• f
MAY 5, 1987

[R.S. PATHAK, CJI, RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, B
G.L. OZA AND M .M. DUIT, JJ.)

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985--Appointment of Chairman,
Viet-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, c
Member.

In these Review Petitions, the Attorney General sought clarifica-
tion o( certain observations made in the individual judgments delivered
on December 9, 1986 disposing o( the Writ ~titions filed by the
petitiuners challenging the vires o( the Administrative Tribunals Act, D
1985.

Disposing ot the Review Petitions,

HELD: I. In tbe ca~ of recruitment to 1M Central Administra-
tive Tribunal the appropriate course would be to appoint a High E
... Powered Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme
Court to be nominated by the Chid Justice of India, while in the C2Se of
rtcruitment to the State Administrative Tribonals the High Powered
Seltctioo Committee should be beaded by a sitting Judge of the High
Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court
COGctrned. (23~G-2JSAI F

2. Tbe contention that an advocate will not have the administra...
live txperience which is r ....ulnd (or a Member of the Administrative
T 'b -,
n unaJ canoot be accepttd. An advocate wbo Is qualitled to be a
Judge or tl~ lligh Court is an advocate who by implication Is qualified
~ ~rlonn not only the judicial duties but the administrative functions G
b1eh a lllgh Court Judge Is up«ted to discharge. Whether an
advOcate applying tor r«ruitment to the Administrative Tribunal bas
~rr~elent admJoistrathe put~ntJ.al can be eumined and judged during
Proc~, or sel~tion. (!.lSU·l>1

(Time tlxed for lntroduclog leglslatioo to give effect to the obser· H
··,
133

·- l . ~~ - ...
--- .. ·--·· ..,.. . . ..... ··-·
' ~
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19871 3 S.C.R.
l
)
vations made in the Judgment, and, for setting up Additional Benches
A
extended upto July 31, 1987 and December 31, 1987 respectively).

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos . ."i20-23 of
1987.

B IN

Writ Petition Nos. 12437-12460 of 1985, 238 of 1986 and Trans-
ferred Cases Nos. 9-11, 12-13 of 1986.

K. Parasaran Attorney General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the
Petitioners.
c
P.H. Parekh, Suhail Dutt, P.D. Sharma and R. Ramachandran ."1
for the Respondents.

The fol1owing Order of the Court was delivered:
D
In these petitions for review the learned Attorney General of
India urges that certain observations and conclusions expressed in the
1·
individual hdgments of Bhagwati, CJI and one of us (Ranganath
Misra, J) appear to conflict with each other, and prays that clarifica-
tion be made. In the first place, he has drawn our attention to the
E 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-Chairman and · 'i
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
F 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 Coutt 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.
G 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 recruit-
ment to the State Administrative Tribunals, the High Powered Selec-
H tion Committee should be headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court
S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR v. U.O.I. 235

to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. A

The second contention of the learned Attorney General is that
the observations of Bhagwati, CJI 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 B
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 administra-
r-- tive functions which a High Court Judge is expected to discharge. C
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 Bb~gwati,
CJI in his Judgment. · '
I D
I
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. Havin~ regard to
the circumstances of the case and the administrative requ'trements of
the situation, we have no hesitation in granting the time prayed for.
> E
The learned Attorney General also prays thafhine may be ex-
tended 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. F

P.S.S. Petitions disposed of.