Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao vs Union Of India And Others on 28 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)ALD438, 2000(4)ALT323
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This contempt case lias been lodged on the ground of deliberate non-compliance of the direction contained in the judgment dated 16-10-1998 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.15463 of 1997 and Batch. In the said Batch of writ petitions, several questions were raised including the constitutional" validity of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The constitutional validity was upheld basing upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, but the aspect which was not dealt with by Chandra Kumar i.e., the tenure of the appointees, was dealt with by the Division Bench and held that for maintaining the independence of judiciary, tenure of 5 years shall not be read into Section 8 of the Act and that it shall be read that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall hold the office till the attainment of 65 years of age from the date of assumption of office and the Members - both judicial and administrative - shall hold the office till the attainment of 62 years of age from the date of assumption of office. As there was provision in the Act for considering the sitting or retired High Court Judges as also the Advocates having standing of more than 10 years to be appointed to the post of Vice-Chairman and as no advocate was considered in the State for appointment to the post of either Judicial Member or Vice-Chairman in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, a direction was given to consider not only the Judicial Officers but also the Advocates for appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman and also Judicial Members.
2. In this contempt case, the complaint is that the post of Vice-Chairman to be filled up by Judicial Member has fallen vacant and one Mr. A. Venkat Reddy has been appointed and his appointment has been made in utter violation of the directions issued by this Court.
3. What Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends is (hat it is a different case if the advocate/s is/are considered and are found to be unfit to hold the office of the Vice-Chairman but in the instant case, no advocate has been considered at all and as such it amounts to contempt.
4. Sri. T. Ananta Babu, the learned Advocate-General, submits that it is not compulsory that advocates should be considered and appointed to the post of Vice-Chairman and may be the Act says that advocates are also eligible to be appointed but that does not mean that advocates should be appointed and that in any event, it cannot be said that the Committee, which was headed by the Chief Justice, had not made an exercise of having an overall view of the eligibility, be it judicial officers or advocates, and he has produced the file before us and we are extracting the minutes of the Selection Committee which is to the following effect:
"After deliberations, it was unanimously resolved that as the vacancy pertains to that of Judicial Member, it may be appropriately be filled from the judicial stream. Among the existing Members of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, only the senior most Member, Sri A. Venkat Reddy, satisfied the eligibility criteria of having concluded 3 years as Member (Judicial) as on date. If appointed, he will have over three years before attaining the age of 65 years.
It was, therefore, unanimously resolved to recommend the candidature of Sri A. Venkat Reddy, Member (Judicial), A.P. Administrative Tribunal, for appointment to the vacant post of Vice-Chairman, A.P. Administrative Tribunal."
5. From this, the learned Advocate-General wants us to infer that even the advocates were considered but the Committee found that Mr. A. Venkat Reddy was most suitable. We do not concur with the submission of Mr. Advocate-General, as, a reading of the above minutes do not suggest that any advocate's name has been considered. But by that, we cannot conclude that there is any act of contempt committed by the respondents.
6. Article 217 of the Indian Constitution deals with the appointment of Judges of the High Court and the eligible persons to be appointed are advocates having more than 10 years of practice, jurists and also the judicial officers of the rank of senior District Judges. There is no imposition that the appointee shall be from all the above categories but it came to light that there are some guidelines fixing some quota for the senior District Judges. But, there is no such thing insofar as the appointment of the Members, Vice-Chairman or Chairman of the Administrative Tribunals. As the judicial review of administrative action and even of legislative action has been entrusted primarily to the Administrative Tribunals by the Supreme Court in its unanimous judgment in Chandra Kumar's case, emphatically barring the High Courts from entertaining the causes of the said judicial review directly without the intervention of the Administrative Tribunals, as newly appointed District Judges and Administrative Officers who are not legally trained in dealing with the constitutional matters or even service cases and as the Administrative Tribunals Act provides for appointment of the advocates also as Judicial Members and Vice-Chairman and for the better quality of administration of justice in service matters, we were of the considered view that advocates should also be considered and as such issued a direction to consider. But, if the advocates are not considered, it cannot be read as an act of contempt of the Court. It is left for the constitutional and statutory functionaries to select the candidates for manning the Tribunals. That apart, the Supreme Court is seized of the matter and had also stayed the operation of the judgment of this Court and it will be in the fitness of things and judicial discipline not to enter any debate with the desirability of the appointment of advocates also as Judicial Members and Vice-Chairman of the Administrative Tribunals and, in fact, it is better to wait for the judicial policy to be evolved by the highest Court of the country.
7. In view of what is stated supra, the contempt case is dismissed.