V.K. MAJOTRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 09-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

V .K. MAJOTRA 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 6--Appointment ofVice-
Chairman-Qualification for-Appointment of members of administrative 
service as Vice-Chairman-Held justified-Service Law. 
A 
B 
Constitution of India-Article 226-High Court-Jurisdiction of- C 
High Court issuing directions in respect of matters not covered by the 
pleadings of the parties before it-Held, not justified-High Court should 
restrict itself to the pleadings. 
Principles of Natural Justice-Notice to the affected party-High D 
Court issuing directions affecting third party interests-Held, notice must 
be given to the affected parties before issuance of the such directions-
Constitution of1ndia-Artic/e 226. 
Section 6 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 lays down 
the qualification for appointment of the Vice-Chairman of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. Under Section 6 (2) (a) a person who is or 
has been or who possesses the qualification to become a Judge of a High 
Court can be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. Under Section 6(2)(b) (bb) and (c), members 
E 
of the administrative service too can be appointed as the Vice-
F 
Chairman. The explanation deals with the computation of work 
experience in cases of civil servants. 
S filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the panel 
prepared for the post of Vice-Chairman in various branches of the G 
Central Administrative Tribunal. He also challenged the constitutional 
validity of the explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunal 
Act. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court did not decide the 
inter se claims of the parties to the writ petition. Instead, the High · H 
483 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Court disposed of the writ petition holding that only a sitting or retired 
Judge of the High Court or an advocate having qualifications for being 
appointed as a High Court Judge could be appointed as Vice-Chairman 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Government was directed 
to prepare the impugned panel and all future panels by considering 
B only the persons referred to in Section 6(2)(a) of the Administrative 
Tribunals Act. The High Court further observed that even in the other 
Tribunals, such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Appellate 
Tribunal etc., only persons having legal background should be appointed 
as the presiding officer. In case of a single member bench, the member 
should be from legal background. The copies of the judgment were 
C directed to be sent to various heads of the concerned departments of 
Union of India, the Chief Secretary of U.P. and to the Chairman of 
CAT for compliance. 
The order of the High Court was challenged by the aggrieved 
D parties before this Court. The appellants contended that the High 
Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned directions 
as no party had raised that point before the High Court. The appellants 
also contended that the High Court has not decided the main dispute 
in respect of which the writ petition was filed. 
E 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter back to the High 
Court for adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition, the 
Court 
F 
HELD : I.I. The High Court has over stepped its jurisdiction in 
giving a direction beyond the pleadings or the points raised by the 
parties during the course of the arguments. The writ courts would be 
well advised to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition 
and if in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of 
the case any additional points are to be raised then the concerned and 
G affected parties should be put to the notice on the additional points to 
satisfy the principles of natural justice. Parties cannot be taken by 
surprise. (489-E, F) 
1.2. The point on which the writ petition has been disposed of was 
H not raised by the parties in their pleadings. The point raised in the writ 
v. K. MAJOTRA V. U.0.l. 
485 
petition was neither adverted to not adjudicated upon by the High A 
Court. The parties were not at issue on the point decided by the High 
Court. The vires of Section 6 (2)(b)(bb) and (c) of the Administrative 
Tribunal Act, 1985 were not challenged in the writ petition. The effect of 
the direction issued by the High Court that henceforth the appointment 
to the post of Vice-Chairman be made on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.