Satheesh Vasath vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2017
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.