UNION OF INDIA VS NAVNEET KUMAR CASE

UNION OF INDIA VS NAVNEET KUMAR CASE

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Non-Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3656 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.20919 of 2021)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)

Versus

NAVNEET KUMAR ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Leave granted.

1. The respondent’s request for extension of the term of

appointment as a Judicial Member, Central Administrative

Tribunal by another term was rejected by Appointments

Committee of the Cabinet (for short “ACC”) on

11.10.2019. The same was communicated to the

respondent on 24.10.2019. A writ petition was filed by the

respondent before the High Court of Judicature at

1

Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was allowed by the High

Court on 27.08.2021. Thus, this appeal has been filed by

the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment

passed by the High Court.

2. It is necessary to refer to the relevant facts that have

led to the filing of this appeal. On 19.05.2011, the

respondent was approved by the competent authority to

be appointed as Judicial Member of the Central

Administrative Tribunal. On 30.05.2011, the respondent

was appointed as a Judicial Member for a period of five

years from the date of assumption of charge or till he

attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. He

assumed charge as a Judicial Member, Central

Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on 28.6.2011. In

2013, the respondent was transferred to Lucknow Bench

of Central Administrative Tribunal at his request. Rules 9

and 10 were inserted in The Administrative Tribunals

(Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011 (for

short “2011 Rules”) by way of an amendment dated 21st

March 2014. Rule 9 relates to the extension of term of

2

appointment of a member of the Central Administrative

Tribunal.

3. A representation was made by the respondent on

21.12.2015 requesting for extension of his term as a

Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal in

accordance with the 2011 Rules. The Chairman, Central

Administrative Tribunal, by a letter dated 21.12.2015, sent

a proposal to Department of Personnel and Training (for

short “DoPT”) for extension of the term of the respondent.

The proposal of the Chairman, Central Administrative

Tribunal along with the report received from the

Intelligence Bureau were placed before the Selection

Committee on 19.02.2016. The Selection Committee

headed by a sitting Judge of this Court recommended

extension of the term of the respondent. The said

recommendation was approved by the Hon’ble Chief

Justice of India on 08.03.2016.

4. On 01.06.2016, the ACC requested the DoPT to reexamine the proposal for extension of the term of the

respondent in light of the additional material that had

surfaced. The DoPT submitted its remarks and thereafter,

3

the ACC returned the proposal for extension of term of

respondent on 06.03.2017. The decision of the ACC was

placed before the Selection Committee which was headed

by a sitting Judge of this Court on 11.03.2017. The

Selection Committee, took note of the decision of the

ACC for returning the proposal for extension of term of

the respondent, and recommended that the existing

vacancies be carried forward to the next vacancy year,

i.e. 2017. The decision of the Selection Committee was

approved by the Chief Justice of India on 06.04.2017.

DoPT, by a letter dated 12.04.2017, informed the

Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal about the

decision of the Selection Committee which was approved

by the Chief Justice of India. The Committee

recommended that both the vacancies may be carried

forward to the next year i.e. 2017.

5. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a

direction to the appellants to issue appointment order for

extension of his term as per Section 6(3) of the

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The High Court, by a

judgment dated 08.05.2019, allowed the said writ petition

4

and set aside: (i) the order dated 06.03.2017 by which the

respondent was informed that the ACC has returned the

proposal for extension of the term of the respondent; and

(ii) order dated 12.04.2017 by which DoPT informed the

Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal about the

decision by the Selection Committee which was approved

by the Chief Justice of India. The High Court further

directed ACC to decide on the recommendations of the

Selection Committee and pass appropriate orders within a

period of 4 months. Thereafter, the ACC passed an order

on 11.10.2019 denying extension of term of appointment

to the respondent for another term as Judicial Member,

Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was

communicated to the respondent on 24.10.2019. Being

aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

challenging the validity of the order dated 11.10.2019.

The High Court passed the impugned judgment and

allowed the writ petition directing the competent authority

to take a decision afresh regarding extension of the

respondent’s term of appointment as Judicial member of

5

Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of ten

weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

6. The High Court was of the opinion that in view of the

earlier judgment dated 08.05.2019, the letter dated

12.04.2017 written by the DoPT to Chairman, Central

Administrative Tribunal was quashed. Resultantly, the

decision of the Selection Committee for carrying forward

the vacancies to the next year i.e., 2017 was also quashed

by the High Court and could not have been relied upon by

the DoPT again. In spite of certain complaints that were

received by the concerned authorities against the

respondent, the High Court held that the entire record was

examined before the judgment dated 08.05.2019 was

passed, in which it was held that there was nothing

adverse against the respondent in the said complaints.

The High Court found fault with the proposal of the DoPT

as they have not taken into consideration the findings

recorded in its earlier Judgment dated 08.05.2019. The

said proposal of DoPT was the basis for the decision taken

by the competent authority. The High Court was of the

view that the recommendation made by the

6

Administrative Department that was sent to the

competent authority could not have been relied upon for

the purpose of rejecting the extension of the respondent’s

term. The decision of ACC should be without considering

any inputs of the DoPT, strictly in accordance with Rule

9(4) of the 2011 Rules. The High Court found fault with

the decision of the ACC as it was contrary to the

recommendations made by the Selection Committee

which was approved by the Chief Justice of India. The High

Court allowed the writ petition and directed the ACC to

take a decision afresh for the grant of extension of the

respondent’s term of appointment as Judicial Member of

the Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned

Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the High Court

committed an error in holding that the recommendation

made by the Selection Committee for carrying forward the

vacancies to the next year i.e. 2017, stood set aside by

the judgment of the High Court dated 08.05.2019.

According to learned ASG, after the recommendation was

made by the Selection Committee to the competent

7

authority, the additional material which came to the notice

of the authorities was placed before the Selection

Committee. Pursuant thereto, the Selection Committee

decided that the vacancies which were to be filled up by

the appointment of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj

should be carried forward to the next year i.e. 2017. The

said recommendation of the Selection Committee was

approved by the Chief Justice of India. It was further

argued by Mr. Jain that the High Court, by a judgment

dated 08.05.2019, only directed the competent authority

to pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the 2011

Rules. It was contended on behalf of the appellants, that

a suitable order in terms of the recommendations made by

the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief

Justice of India was passed.

8. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent, stated that the

recommendations made by the Selection Committee to

extend the tenure of the respondent has to be complied

with by the competent authority. However, the competent

authority taking into account certain inputs given by DoPT

8

referred the request of the respondent for extension of

term of appointment to the Selection Committee. The

request that was made by ACC to the Selection

Committee relates only to carrying forward the vacancies

of 2016 to the next year which was approved by the

Selection Committee. The said approval does not amount

to rejection of the respondent’s request for extension of

his tenure for another term. It was submitted on behalf of

the respondent that the judgement of the High Court

dated 08.05.2019, set aside the proceedings dated

06.03.2017 by which the ACC had returned the proposal

for extension of term of appointment of the respondent

and the letter dated 12.04.2017 by which the Chairman,

Central Administrative Tribunal was informed about the

rejection of extension of tenure of the respondent was

also set aside. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent, supported the impugned judgment by arguing

that the High Court, in its judgement dated 08.05.2019,

had already considered the complaints that were made

against the respondent which was the basis for the

rejection of the respondent’s request for extension of his

9

term. The High Court, in its judgment dated 08.05.2019,

observed that there was nothing adverse against the

respondent on the basis of which the request for extension

could be rejected.

9. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Initially, the

Selection Committee headed by a sitting Judge of this

Court recommended the extension of the respondent as

Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal for

another term. The said recommendation was approved by

the Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, additional material

surfaced which was placed before the Selection

Committee by the Competent Authority for seeking review

of the earlier decision. We have carefully examined the

original record. It is clear from the record that the

Selection Committee recorded that the ACC had returned

the proposal for extension of the tenure of the respondent

after taking a decision not to fill up the vacancies by

extending the term of the respondent and Shri A.K.

Bhardwaj. It was recommended by the Selection

Committee to carry forward the said vacancies to the year

2017. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the

10

contention of the respondent that the recommendation

made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the

2016 vacancies to year 2017 does not amount to

rejection of the request of the respondent for extension of

his term as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative

Tribunal. There cannot be any manner of doubt that a

conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee

not to recommend the extension of tenure of the

respondent. The decision taken by the Selection

Committee was duly approved by the Chief Justice of

India.

10. The High Court committed an error in holding that

the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to

carry forward the vacancies to year 2017 was set aside

by the High Court, in its earlier order dated 08.05.2019.

The reason given for such conclusion is that the letter

dated 12.04.2017 by which DoPT informed the

Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the

said vacancies of 2016 will be filled up along with the

vacancies for the year 2017 was set aside. A close

scrutiny of the judgment dated 08.05.2019 would show

11

that the direction of the High Court was that the ACC

should pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the

2011 Rules pursuant to the recommendations made by

the Selection Committee and approved by the Chief

Justice of India. Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2017

cannot be understood as the recommendation of the

Selection Committee being set aside.

11. The ACC did not take any decision contrary to the

recommendation made by the Selection Committee which

was approved by the Chief Justice of India. Pursuant to

the direction issued by the High Court on 08.05.2019, the

order passed on 11.10.2019 by the ACC is neither

contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection

Committee nor in violation of the directions issued by the

High Court.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of

the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

 ..............................J.

 [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

 .............................J.

 [B. R. GAVAI]

New Delhi,

May 5, 2022

12