Uttam Bir Singh Bedi vs. UOI (Madras High Court)
The President of the Tribunal has no power to write the Members' ACR
The Petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Tribunal, was superseded to the post of Vice President by his junior Mr. P. Mohanarajan. The Petitioner claimed that the supersession was on account of adverse Annual Confidential Reports ("ACRs") written by the President of the Tribunal which had misguided the high level Selection Committee without the Petitioner being giving an opportunity to represent against the ACR. The Petitioner's challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal was rejected on the ground that the Selection Committee had decided on the basis of merit. The Petitioner challenged the decision before the High Court and raised two issues: (i) whether the post of Vice President is a promotional post to that of the Member of the ITAT or not? & (ii) whether the President of the ITAT has the authority to record the ACRs of the Members & if so, whether the Government has the right to review the ACRs of the Members? HELD by the High Court:
(i) The Vice Presidents of the Tribunal are appointed from amongst the Members in terms of Rule 7A of the Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963. Under Rule 7C, the criteria for selection is merit. The argument that because there is a merger of the pay scales of the posts of Members and Vice Presidents, there is also a merger of the posts and hence the Members cannot be subjected to selection process is not acceptable. There is only a unification of the pay and not a merger of the posts. Under the scheme of the Act, the post of Vice President is over and above the level of Member & carries higher responsibilities, higher pay band and is definitely a promotional post from that of the Member;
(ii) The Tribunal is a judicial body and while the President exercises administrative control over the Benches, he has no power to write the ACRs of the Members. Further, being a judicial body, the Tribunal should have judicial autonomy and therefore, the Government cannot act like a reviewing authority;
(iii) On merits, the Petitioner's ACR showed that while he was a hard working and knowledgeable person, he behaved in a rude manner with the colleagues and his rigid tendency and non-adjustable nature had invited many problems, resulting in his frequent transfers. These must have weighed with the Selection Committee. As the ACRs were illegally recorded by the President and reviewed by the Government, the Selection Committee must reconsider the claim of the Petitioner on merits de hors the ACRs;
(iv) On the conduct of the Petitioner, the Court observed that it was "pained" & "disturbed" by the material on record that showed the he was "arrogant" and "would always throw to winds the well established judicial conventions" including "instances of keeping the matters for writing dissenting orders for months together and fighting with the other Members on silly aspects are some of them". Noted that the Petitioner was "transferring his personal feelings against his colleagues into the orders circulated by them and nurturing unnecessary hatred and ill-feelings" and advice given that the Petitioner should "mend his ways and conduct himself in a dignified manner and follow the established judicial conventions, so as to maintain the decorum on and off the dais".
Related Judgements
Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. UOI & B. R. Mittal vs. UOI (CAT Delhi Bench) Appointment of Vice President of the ITAT is by merit-based selection and not seniority. No reservation for OBC
UOI vs. Pradip Kumar Kedia (Supreme Court) Under Rule 4, a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, but he has a right to be considered for appointment. The candidates in the wait-list, not having been approved by the Appointments Committee, were…
UOI vs. R. Gandhi (Supreme Court – 5 Judges) Parliament is competent to constitute Tribunals for special Acts. However, the failure to ensure independence of judiciary and separation of judicial and executive power renders the Company Law Tribunal unconstitutional. Suggestions given on how to remedy the defects
The President of the Tribunal has no power to write the Members' ACR
The Petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Tribunal, was superseded to the post of Vice President by his junior Mr. P. Mohanarajan. The Petitioner claimed that the supersession was on account of adverse Annual Confidential Reports ("ACRs") written by the President of the Tribunal which had misguided the high level Selection Committee without the Petitioner being giving an opportunity to represent against the ACR. The Petitioner's challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal was rejected on the ground that the Selection Committee had decided on the basis of merit. The Petitioner challenged the decision before the High Court and raised two issues: (i) whether the post of Vice President is a promotional post to that of the Member of the ITAT or not? & (ii) whether the President of the ITAT has the authority to record the ACRs of the Members & if so, whether the Government has the right to review the ACRs of the Members? HELD by the High Court:
(i) The Vice Presidents of the Tribunal are appointed from amongst the Members in terms of Rule 7A of the Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963. Under Rule 7C, the criteria for selection is merit. The argument that because there is a merger of the pay scales of the posts of Members and Vice Presidents, there is also a merger of the posts and hence the Members cannot be subjected to selection process is not acceptable. There is only a unification of the pay and not a merger of the posts. Under the scheme of the Act, the post of Vice President is over and above the level of Member & carries higher responsibilities, higher pay band and is definitely a promotional post from that of the Member;
(ii) The Tribunal is a judicial body and while the President exercises administrative control over the Benches, he has no power to write the ACRs of the Members. Further, being a judicial body, the Tribunal should have judicial autonomy and therefore, the Government cannot act like a reviewing authority;
(iii) On merits, the Petitioner's ACR showed that while he was a hard working and knowledgeable person, he behaved in a rude manner with the colleagues and his rigid tendency and non-adjustable nature had invited many problems, resulting in his frequent transfers. These must have weighed with the Selection Committee. As the ACRs were illegally recorded by the President and reviewed by the Government, the Selection Committee must reconsider the claim of the Petitioner on merits de hors the ACRs;
(iv) On the conduct of the Petitioner, the Court observed that it was "pained" & "disturbed" by the material on record that showed the he was "arrogant" and "would always throw to winds the well established judicial conventions" including "instances of keeping the matters for writing dissenting orders for months together and fighting with the other Members on silly aspects are some of them". Noted that the Petitioner was "transferring his personal feelings against his colleagues into the orders circulated by them and nurturing unnecessary hatred and ill-feelings" and advice given that the Petitioner should "mend his ways and conduct himself in a dignified manner and follow the established judicial conventions, so as to maintain the decorum on and off the dais".
Related Judgements
Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. UOI & B. R. Mittal vs. UOI (CAT Delhi Bench) Appointment of Vice President of the ITAT is by merit-based selection and not seniority. No reservation for OBC
UOI vs. Pradip Kumar Kedia (Supreme Court) Under Rule 4, a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, but he has a right to be considered for appointment. The candidates in the wait-list, not having been approved by the Appointments Committee, were…
UOI vs. R. Gandhi (Supreme Court – 5 Judges) Parliament is competent to constitute Tribunals for special Acts. However, the failure to ensure independence of judiciary and separation of judicial and executive power renders the Company Law Tribunal unconstitutional. Suggestions given on how to remedy the defects
No comments:
Post a Comment