@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.@mdashThe petitioners have challenged the appointment of Shri N.S. Sethi as Chairman, State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that Shri N.S. Sethi was an I.A.S. Officer. He was appointed Vice-Chairman of State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh. On relinquishment of office of Chairman by Justice R.P. Awasthi on 3-7-1999, Shri Sethi was appointed Acting Chairman pending appointment of Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 1-9-1999, Shri Sethi has been appointed Chairman for a period of five years from the date of taking charge of the post or till he attains the age of 65 year or whichever is earlier.
2. The petitioners submit that Shri N.S. Sethi has no legal or otherwise any judicial training so as to cloth him with any judicial discipline. It is only a judicial member with two years minimum experience on the post of Vice-Chairman who alone is eligible to be appointed on the post of Chairman of the Tribunal. Merely because Shri Sethi worked for a minimum period of two years as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, that would not qualify him to be appointed as Chairman of the Tribunal. This appointment is in total disregard of the observations of Apex Court in
3. We are not impressed by the submissions raised by the petitioners. The petitioners could not advance any justifiable ground for the delay in approaching this Court. Shri Sethi was appointed Chairman by order dated September 1, 1999. Continuously, he is working till date apart from working as Vice-Chairman for some time before taking up this assignment. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
4. Examining the case on merits, we quote Section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as it stood before amendment :
"6 (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman unless he--
(a) is or has been, a Judge of a High Court,
(b) has for atleast two years, held the office of Vice-Chairman,
(c) has for atleast two years held the post of Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or the State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government of India."
Thereafter, amendment was made to Section 6 by Act No. 51/87 from 22-12-1987. Section 6(1), as amended, is as under :--
"6. Qualification for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members.--
(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman unless he--
(a) is, or has been a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) has, for atleast two years, held the office of Vice-Chairman,
(c) ..... (omitted)."
By this amendment, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 which was declared invalid in Sampat Kumar''s case, has been deleted. However, no invalidity was found in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act under which a person holding the office of Vice-Chairman for atleast two years is qualified for appointment as Chairman. This means Shri M.S. Sethi who had held the office of Vice-Chairman of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal for more than two years was qualified to be appointed as Chairman. Therefore, it can not be said that Shri N.S. Sethi was not qualified to be appointed as Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal.
5. Further contention that only Chief Justice of High Court or when such a person is not available, a senior Judge of proved ability either in office or retired should be appointed as Chairman, can not be appreciated since we are concerned in this case whether Shri Sethi was eligible to be appointed as Chairman of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal having held the office of Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal to which he was appointed from administration. The Apex Court has not held in Sampat Kumar''s case (supra) that a Vice-Chairman can not be appointed Chairman of the Tribunal. We do not find any invalidity in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on grounds contended by the petitioners.
6. Further, consultation with Chief Justice of State High Court is not provided. However, it is expected that looking to the nature of office and the duties to be performed by Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal, the State would develop convention of consulting the Chief Justice of the State High Court in future appointments in case this was not done in the present case, though we believe that there may have been formal consultation with Chief Justice of State High Court.
7. Similarly, we do not appreciate the contention that the case was not processed in accordance with law, namely, that the Council of Ministers was not consulted to advise the Governor in the matter since such matters are looked after by the Chief Minister under the business allocation rules and which amounts consultation with Council of Ministers. Above all, under Sub-section (7) of Section 6, no appointment of a person possessing the qualifications specified in Section 6(1) of the Act, can be made as Chairman except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Obviously, therefore, it has to be presumed that all relevant considerations were examined before the appointment was approved.
No further contention was raised.
8. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
