Kerala High Court
Satheesh Vasath vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2017
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/16TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 10798 of 2017 (S)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
SATHEESH VASATH
S/O.V KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS,
ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT'SIVASAILAM',
ESTATE PAPPANAMCODE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695018.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING,
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
5TH FLOOR, SARDAR PATEL, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI 110001.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (AR-XII) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
4. KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695305.
5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R2-5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10798 of 2017 (S)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION BEARING NO 623/AR-12(2)
2016/P & ARD DTD 1/2/2016
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT VIDE COMMUNICATION DTD 3/3/2017 INDICATING
THE FACT THAT FILE IS STILL RETAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF MINISTER
EXHIBIT P2A A TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION TO INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER
TO INFORMATION ACT VIDE COMMUNICATION DTD 3/3/2017
INDICATING THE FACT THAT FILE IS STILL RETAINED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF JUDGMENT HANIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA(DB)2016(1)
KLT 2016(1) P 30 BY LORDSHIP ANTONY DOMINIC AND P V ASHA JJ.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
sou.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ
&
Antony Dominic, J
------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). No. 10798 of 2017
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ This Public Interest Litigation relates to appointment of Administrative members of the "Kerala Administrative Tribunal". It is alleged that as per the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of members) Rules 2011 made by the Central Government under Section 36 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, recommendations from the Select Committee was received by the State Government sometime in the month of October, 2016. We are in April, 2017. The State Government has not moved forward. It has not yet consulted the Governor and thus it has not sent its recommendation as required by Rule 5(2)(iii) of the said Rules to the Central Government.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Advocate General. To us, there is no question of law that is involved. For the said question, in our view, has already been settled by two Division Bench judgments of this W.P.(C).10798/17 2 Court being Basil Attipetti v. Union of India[2012 (1) KLT 841] and Hanil Kumar M.H. v. Union of India and Others [2015 KHC 7108]. The procedure as contained in the rules is simple and uncomplicated. Rule 5(2) deals with State Administrative Tribunal. It contemplates Selection Committee, whose constitution is defined in Rule 3(2) of the Rules. The Selection Committee in the manner prescribed would prepare a list of persons found eligible and competent for appointment to the post in question. This is then sent to the State Government which, as per Rule 8, are obliged to consult the Governor of the State and upon consultation with the Governor of the State, the list with the recommendation of the Select Committee and the State Government, be forwarded to the Central Government, which, in terms of Rule 5(2)(3), after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, appoint members of the Administrative Tribunal of the State concerned. The procedure as indicated above does not contemplate any delay in the matter much less what we have noticed in the present case. Thus the concern of the writ petitioner is bonafide and correct.
3. We must note the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General. He fairly states that the State Government would within two weeks make recommendations to the W.P.(C).10798/17 3 Governor and consult him. After completing the process of consultation of the Governor of the State, within one week, the State Government would sent the matter to the Central Government as contemplated by Rule 5(2)(3) of the State read with Rule 8(2).
We hope and trust that the State Government, considering the delay already caused, would take expeditious steps in the matter as directed by us because it must not be forgotten that such important posts where disputes had to be settled in relation to the service matters, the Forum should be available to the litigants at all time and delay in appointment would not be in the interest of justice.
With these observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice Sd/-
Antony Dominic, Judge sou.6/4.