SHANKER RAJU versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1 
SHANKER RAJU 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2010) 
JANUARY 04, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - ss.10A and B -
"Term of Office" of a Member of the Tribunal - Whether a 
Member of the Tribunal is eligible for re-appointment after C 
completion of term of ten years - Held: A member of a 
Tribunal can hold such office for a fixed and definite period 
of time, i.e. for a period of five years from the date on which 
he enters upon his office and that period may be extended 
for one more term of five years - Thus the total term that a o 
person can hold the office of the Member of the Tribunal is 
only for a period of 10 years - After completion of 10 years, 
he does not superannuate but goes out of the office. 
Doctrines/Principles: 
Doctrine of stare decisis - Held: A judgment, which has 
held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled only 
because another view is possible :... The underlying logic of 
this doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid uncertainty 
- Maxim "stare decisis et non quieta movere". 
Doctrine of binding precedent - Held: The doctrine of 
binding precedent has the merit of promoting certainty and 
consistency in judicial decisions. 
E 
F 
Words and Phrases - "Term of Office" - Expressions G 
'term' and 'tenure' - . Meaning of - Held: The expresslon'term' 
signifies a fixed period or a determined or prescribed duration 
-
T~e word 'term' when used in reference to the tenure of 
office, means ordinarily 'a fixed and definite time - There is 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A distinction b~•-·words 'term' and 'tenure' as applied to 
a pub/le officer ot'employee - The 'term', as applied to an 
office, refers to a fixed and definite period of time ~ The word 
· 'tenure' has more extended meaning than the word 'term' and 
'tenure'.of an office means the manner in which the office is 
s held especially with regard to time. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Legislative intention -
. Ascertainment of - Duty of the Court - Held: In a court of law 
or equity, what the legislature intended to be done or not to 
C be done can only be legitimately ascertained from what it has 
chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable and 
necessary implication - Where the Legislature clearly 
declares its intent in the scheme of a language of Statute, it 
is the duty of the Court to give full effect to the same without 
scanning its wisdom or policy and without engrafting, adding 
i) or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent 
with such express intent of legislature. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Held: A statute is designed 
to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by Court should 
E be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear 
direction makes that end unattainable. 
The petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 10.12.2000. After 
F completion of his five-year term, he was re-appointed for 
another term of five years and was due to complete his 
second term of five years on 09.12.2010. In April, 2010, in 
response to an advertisement issued by the respondent . 
regarding vacancies of Members in the Tribunal, Principal 
Bench, Delhi, the Petitioner made application for the post 
G of Judicial Member of the Tribunal, the post which he had 
held for nine and a half years at the time of making 
application. Though the petitioner was eligible for the 
appointment in terms of his qualification, the respondent 
vide the impugned communication dated 12-08-2010 
H 
SHANKER RAJU v. UNION OF INDIA 
3 
refused to consider his claim for appointment for the A 
vacancy, on the ground that the petitioner was to 
complete his second term of 5 years as a Judicial Member 
of the Tribunal on 09.12.2010. 
The petitioner challenged the said communication 8 
contending that after completion of a tenure of 10 years, 
he was eligible to apply for the post afresh and should 
be considered on merits and should not be disqualified 
for appointment merely because he had completed 10 
years in that office. The petitioner sought appropriate writ C 
from this Court mainly in respect of the communication 
dated 12-08-2010 and for a direction to the respondent to 
consider his case for appointment to the advertised post 
of Judicial Member in Tribunal on its own merit sans 
eligibility. 
The 
question which,· therefore, arose for 
consideration in the present 

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