Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Judicial Member’s Extension: Union of India vs. Navneet Kumar (2022)

Case Background

On May 19, 2011, Navneet Kumar, the respondent, was approved for appointment as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He was officially appointed on May 30, 2011, for a five-year term, or until he reached 65 years of age, whichever came first. He assumed his position at the Kolkata Bench on June 28, 2011, and was later transferred to the Lucknow Bench in 2013 at his request. The Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011, were amended on March 21, 2014, to include Rules 9 and 10, which pertain to the extension of a member’s term.

The respondent requested an extension of his term on December 21, 2015, in accordance with the 2011 Rules. The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal forwarded this proposal to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The Selection Committee, headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, recommended the extension on February 19, 2016, which was approved by the Chief Justice of India on March 8, 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking an order to extend his term as per Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The High Court, on May 8, 2019, set aside the ACC’s decision to return the proposal for extension and the DoPT’s communication regarding the Selection Committee’s decision to carry forward the vacancies. The High Court directed the ACC to decide on the Selection Committee’s recommendations within four months. Subsequently, the ACC denied the extension on October 11, 2019. The respondent then filed another writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was allowed on August 27, 2021. The High Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the extension of the respondent’s term. This led to the Union of India filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011, specifically Rules 9 and 10, which were inserted by an amendment on March 21, 2014. Rule 9 pertains to the extension of the term of a member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court also referred to Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which relates to the terms of service of the members of the Tribunal. These provisions govern the appointment, tenure, and extension of members of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The relevant provisions are:

• Rule 9 of the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011: “Extension of term of appointment – The term of appointment of a Member may be extended for a further period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total term of appointment of a Member does not exceed ten years.”
• Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985: Deals with the terms of service of the members of the Tribunal.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The High Court erred in concluding that the Selection Committee’s recommendation to carry forward the vacancies to 2017 was set aside by the judgment dated May 8, 2019.
• The additional material that surfaced after the initial recommendation for extension was placed before the Selection Committee.
• The Selection Committee, after considering the additional material, decided to carry forward the vacancies to the next year, i.e., 2017, and this decision was approved by the Chief Justice of India.
• The High Court’s direction in the judgment dated May 8, 2019, was only to pass an order in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules, which the ACC did by not extending the term.
• The order of the ACC was in line with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, which was approved by the Chief Justice of India.

Arguments by the Respondent (Navneet Kumar):

• The competent authority should have complied with the initial recommendation made by the Selection Committee to extend the respondent’s tenure.
• The ACC’s request to the Selection Committee to carry forward the 2016 vacancies to the next year does not amount to a rejection of the respondent’s request for an extension.
• The High Court’s judgment dated May 8, 2019, had set aside the proceedings by which the ACC had returned the proposal for extension and the letter informing the rejection of the extension.
• The High Court, in its judgment dated May 8, 2019, had already considered the complaints against the respondent and found nothing adverse, which should have been the basis for the rejection of the respondent’s request for extension.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in directing the competent authority to reconsider the extension of the respondent’s term as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The main authorities considered were the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011, specifically Rule 9, and Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The court analyzed the procedural aspects of these rules in the context of the facts of the case.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 9 of the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011: The Court interpreted this rule to mean that while an extension could be granted, it was not mandatory, and the competent authority could decide against it based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
• Section 6(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985: The Court did not directly interpret this section but used it as a background to understand the terms of service of the members of the Tribunal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural correctness of the actions taken by the Selection Committee and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The Court emphasized that the Selection Committee, after considering additional material, had consciously decided not to recommend the extension of the respondent’s term and instead recommended carrying forward the vacancies. This decision was approved by the Chief Justice of India. The Court also noted that the ACC’s decision was consistent with the Selection Committee’s recommendation. The Court’s reasoning focused on the sequence of events and the adherence to the procedural norms.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the earlier judgment had set aside the Selection Committee’s decision to carry forward the vacancies. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s direction was only for the ACC to pass an order as per Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules, which the ACC did by not extending the term. The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision of the ACC was not contrary to the recommendations of the Selection Committee and was in line with the directions issued by the High Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Therefore, we are not in agreement with the 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.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the recommendations of the Selection Committee are crucial in the process of extending the term of a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
• The competent authority is not bound to extend the term of a member, even if there was an initial recommendation for extension.
• Additional material can be considered by the Selection Committee for reviewing its earlier decision.
• The decision of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) should be in line with the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
• The High Court should not interfere with the decisions of the ACC if they are in line with the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the decision of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) not to extend the term of a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, is valid and does not violate the rules. This judgment clarifies that the competent authority is not bound to extend a member’s term, even if there was an initial recommendation for extension, and that the Selection Committee can review its earlier decision based on additional material. This case reinforces the importance of procedural correctness and adherence to the recommendations of the Selection Committee in such matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, upholding the rejection of the respondent’s request for an extension of his term as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the decision was based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which had reviewed the case after additional material surfaced. The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of procedural correctness and adherence to the recommendations of the Selection Committee in such matters.