Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. As is evident from the order of the Court dated 12.2.08, the Division Bench of this Court had acted on the basis of a petition filed by one Mr. Anthony Xavier Fernandes. According to him, a large number of cases, nearly more than 4000, were pending before the Goa Administrative Tribunal and the post of an Additional President of the Administrative Tribunal was lying vacant despite the process of selection having been completed. It is also averred in the petition that besides the petitioner, large number of litigants are put to great inconvenience and suffering as a result of non-filling of the vacancy in the Administrative Tribunal and there is no saviour in the Government for "Aam admi". It was specifically averred in this application that about 70 to 80 cases are listed every day before the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji. One Judge was unable to handle them and the aggrieved parties were not able to get any hearing despite their best efforts.

11. On 12.1.05, the Government, in its noting noticed that the Selection Committee was headed by a sitting Judge or a retired Judge of the High Court, nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court and hence it Page 1281 was felt that it would be an effective prior consultation with the High Court and without any further consultation, the appointment should be made. It is not necessary for us to refer to the intervening notings because they relate to various facets, necessary or unnecessary for selection and appointment of the appropriate candidate. As already noticed, the selection process was completed and the candidate was recommended as back as on 10.5.06.

25. Now, we will revert to the facts of the present case in the light of the above principles.

IS THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITIES IN PUBLIC INTEREST?

26. This aspect of the case hardly needs any elaborate discussion. The record clearly reflects that the decision of the Law Minister and agreed by the Chief Minister is not in public interest. The noting recorded in the files of the Government in the year 2003 demonstrated the necessity for appointment of an Additional President of the Administrative Tribunal as that was the need. The expression "Very imperative and the Government is hard pressed" in the file noting shows the approach of the Government as well as the need of the public. At that time, hardly much arrears might have been pending before the Administrative Tribunal and even if so they were within the range of manageable limits so as to provide justice to the people of the State. It has taken years and years for the Government to take this decision and which now has been given up without any plausible reason. As on 28th January, 2008 there are more than 4461 cases pending before the Tribunal, which by passage of time have increased further and will go on increasing and may reach a number which would frustrate the very purpose of constituting a special Tribunal for providing expeditious disposal of cases. It can safely be known that the very purpose of the Government creating a specialized Tribunal is to make justice easily accessible. The laudable purpose is to grant relief to the public at large and to ensure that the litigants do not suffer agony of prolonged litigation. The Chief Minister, after obtaining the opinion of the Advocate General, had accepted the proposal of the departments to appoint Additional President of Goa Administrative Tribunal and had directed that full facts be brought to the notice of the High Court before the appointment. The entire process of selection was found to be in conformity with law and vide letter dated 12th December, 2007, the Government had written complete facts in that Page 1290 regard to the High Court and sought its approval. In its letter, the Government had made a specific reference for extending the life of the panel. The High Court accorded its approval and found nothing wrong with the process of selection. After completion of this entire process, it was unfair and improper for the Law Minister to make the questioned noting. It appears to have been recorded primarily to frustrate and throttle the entire process and deny the appointment to a duly selected candidate.

27. Both the reasons recorded in the impugned noting were without any basis and, in fact, were factually incorrect. First, the reason that life of the Panel had exhausted, does not stand to any reason because the name of the selected candidate was sent for approval of the High Court as back as on 12th May, 2006, which is within the prescribed time and the same was approved by the High Court. Even otherwise, once the High Court had agreed to the request of the Government made in its letter dated 12th December, 2007, the issue in relation to life of the panel had lost all its significance. Secondly, it was recorded in the order that earlier, a decision had been taken by the Government to amend the law and constitute a separate Administrative Tribunal for South Goa but such decision is nowhere found on the file. Thus, we are really at loss to understand as to for what reasons the Law Minister has passed the order in question. What public interest was sought to be served by frustrating the appointment in question. It appears that attempts were made to delay the appointment and when final decision was taken and all concerned authorities including the High Court had concurred with such appointment then a note without any plausible reasons was recorded to frustrate the entire process. The entire exercise done by various departments of the Government as well as the High Court and the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with law over a long period of four years was brought to a naught. We are unable to contribute to such practice or approach of the Government. Administration of Justice is not a matter which exclusively falls in the domain of the Government. The Government is expected always to act in coordination with the High Court and to seek the approval of the High Court wherever required in relation to such matters. Such decisions cannot be permitted to be taken at the whims and fancies of individuals. The interest of public at large must take precedence over individualistic interest. Merely because one occupies high status in the hierarchy in the Government does not vest him with unguided and unfettered powers particularly,in relation to matters of administration of justice. In our view,public interest has been made to suffer repeatedly in the present case and none else but the Government itself is responsible for increasing the pendency before the Tribunal. Public interest is an expression which takes in its ambit the concept of responsibility and fair governance. The excuse now put forward by the Government before the Court that it plans to amend the law and create the separate Administrative Tribunal for South Goa is nothing but again is an attempt to sidetrack the appointment of the selected person. In a case of existing vacant post of Additional President of Goa Administrative Tribunal, the Government has taken more than four years to finalise the appointment to that post, then it would be anybody's guess as to how much time would be taken by the Government and the appropriate authorities to Page 1291 amend and implement the law, complete the process of selection and then make appointment of the duly selected person to the post. It really may be too long a way for a common man to get benefit out of this loud thinking of the State administration. We have already noticed that there is no such decision taken by any competent authority that is available on record. The above noted facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that action of the State and the impugned notings suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and are not in larger public interest.