KUDRAT SANDHU versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 22-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
KUDRAT SANDHU
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 22, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Tribunals – Chairperson/Judicial/Administrative/Expert/
Technical members – Selection of – After considering the
suggestions filed, along with modifications, order passed by Supreme
Court on 9 February 2018 as an interim arrangement to govern
selection in all Tribunals – However, since some of the Search-cum-
Selection Committees (SCSC) had already proceeded with their work
prior to the said interim order, matter listed for further hearing
wherein inter alia Union of India was directed to file status of selection
process by the Committees – Tabular chart filed by Union of India
indicating the status of selection process in respect of 19
Tribunals – Tribunal-wise position with regard to the selections
analysed by Supreme Court and directions given in respect of each
of the Tribunal – Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities
(Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of
Members) Rules, 2017.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
279 of 2017
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
  WITH
W. P. (C) Nos. 558, 561, 640, 1016, 788, 925, 1098 and 1129 of
2017
W. P. (C) No. 33 of 2018.
Arvind P. Datar, C. A. Sundaram, Mohan Parasaran, Sidharth
Luthra, Sr. Advs., Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Karan Batura, Ms. Anushree
Prashit Kapadia, Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Vikramaditya,
Arun Monga, Ms. Divya Sharma, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Nikhil Swami,
V. K. Verma, Nikhil Nayyar, Rupesh Kumar, Anand Varma, K. Krishna
Kumar, Annam D. N. Rao, Advs. for the Petitioner.
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 1005
1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
K. K. Venugopal, AG,  S. S. Shamshery, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh,
Rukmini Bobde, Kumar Shashank, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Zoheb
Hossain, Ashok Mathur, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The follwing order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
1. On 9 February 2018, an interim order was passed by this Court
after considering the suggestions filed during the course of hearing. The
suggestions read as follows:
“1. Staying the composition of Search-cum-Selection Committee
as prescribed in Column 4 of the Schedule to the Tribunal,
Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification,
experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules,
2017 both in respect of Chairman/Judicial Members and
Administrative Members. A further direction to constitute an
interim Search-cum Selection Committee during the pendency
of this W.P. in respect of both Judicial/Administrative members
as under :
a. Chief Justice of India or his nominee - Chairman
b. Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal - Member
c. Two Secretaries nominated by the Government of India -
Members
2. Appointment to the post of Chairman shall be made by
nomination by the Chief Justice of India.
3. Stay the terms of office of 3 years as prescribed in Column 5
of the Schedule to the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other
Authorities (Qualification, experience and other conditions of
service of members) Rules, 2017. A further direction fixing the
term of office of all selectees by the aforementioned interim
Search-cum Selection Committee and consequent appointees as
5 years.
4. All appointments to be made in pursuance to the selection
made by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be
with conditions of service as applicable to the Judges of High Court.
5. A further direction to the effect that all the selections made by
the aforementioned interim selection committee and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
consequential appointment of all the selectees as Chairman/
Judicial/Administrative members for a term of 5 years with
conditions of service as applicable to Judges of High Court shall
not be affected by the final outcome of the Writ Petition.”
2. The learned Attorney General had no objection to the above
suggestions being adopted as an interim arrangement to govern the
selections to all tribunals, except for the fourth and fifth suggestions
recorded above. The Learned Attorney General suggested that the above
two suggestions may be re-cast as follows:
“4. All appointments to be made in pursuance to the selection
made by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall abide
by the conditions of service as per the old Acts and the Rules.
5. A further direction to the effect that all the selec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.