S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 05-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK, RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, G.L. OZA, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-. 
,. 
• f 
S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MAY 5, 1987 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJI, RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, 
G.L. OZA AND M .M. DUIT, JJ.) 
A 
B 
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 . 
--- .. ·--·· .. ,. . . ' . ..... ~ ··-· 
~~ - ... 
). 
~ 
··, 
A 
B 
c 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19871 3 S.C.R. 
vations made in the Judgment, and, for setting up Additional Benches 
extended upto July 31, 1987 and December 31, 1987 respectively). 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos . ."i20-23 of 
1987. 
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. 
l ) 
P.H. Parekh, Suhail Dutt, P.D. Sharma and R. Ramachandran 
."1 
D 
for the Respondents. 
The fol1owing Order of the Court was delivered: 
In these petitions for review the learned Attorney General of 1· 
India urges that certain observations and conclusions expressed in the 
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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.