Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 5 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Salil Sabhlok & Ors on 15 February, 2013
15.Similar is the contention that the issues raised in
these writ petitions are service matters. This
contention, to our mind, need not detain us any
longer in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok [(2013) 5 SCC 1],
where, a similar contention raised to resist a
challenge to the appointment of the Chairman of
Public Service Commission of the State of Punjab was
rejected by the Apex Court. For these reasons, we do
not find any substance in the first contention raised
by the learned counsel for the respondents.
W.P(C).24989/15 & 25749/15
R.S. Mittal vs Union Of India on 27 March, 1995
28.This view that we have taken finds support from the
judgment of the Apex Court in R.S.Mittal v. Union of
India [1995 Suppl 2 SCC 230]. That case arose in the
context of selection of candidates for appointment to
the post of Judicial Member in Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, made by a selection board headed by a
sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms
of rule 4(1) and 4(2) of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1963. The selection board prepared a
panel of selected candidates which included the name
of the appellant and sent the recommendations to the
Central Government for consideration in accordance
W.P(C).24989/15 & 25749/15
38
with the rules. The Central Government did not make
any appointment and issued fresh advertisement
inviting applications for the same post. This was
challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal
seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the
appellant as Judicial Member. The Tribunal dismissed
the application. It was this order which was
challenged before the Apex Court.
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
10.The first issue that is required to be answered is
the contention raised by the respondents that the
writ petitions are not maintainable. According to
them, the petitioner in W.P(C).25749/15 being the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal Advocates Association
and the petitioner in W.P(C).24989/15 being an
advocate practising in the Tribunal, do not have the
locus standi to file the writ petitions. It is also
contended that the issue raised in the writ petitions
being a service matter, a writ petition filed by a
third party who is neither an applicant nor a
candidate for the post of judicial member is not
maintainable. The contention regarding locus standi
can be answered with reference to the principles laid
down in the judgment of the Apex Court in S.P.Gupta
v. Union of India [AIR 1982 149], where, the question
of locus standi was examined by the Apex Court in
great detail.
Section 4 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993
14. We cannot also be oblivious of the judgments of the
Apex Court in celebrated cases such as Madras Bar
Association v. Union of India [(2014) 10 SCC 1] and
the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association
and Another v. Union of India [2015 AIR SCW 5457]
which were also filed by associations of advocates
and were decided by the Apex Court.
1