# Navneet Kumar v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 519
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-27
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1704 of 2020
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/navneet-kumar-v-u-o-i-ors-47441
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Administrative Tribunal
Act - Sections 6(3) &8(2) - Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of
Members), Rules 2011 - R. 11 - Central
Administrative Tribunal - Post of Judicial
member - Retirement - Extension of term
- Selection Committee recommended for
extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner with the concurrence of the
Chief
Justice
of
India
-
However,
Department of Personnel and training
(DoPT) refused extension, which was
approved by the Appointments Committee
of the Cabinet (ACC) relying upon letter
dated 12.04.2017, though this letter has
already been quashed by the High Court
vide order dated 08.05.2019 - Validity -
Held, once the decision contained in the
letter/order
dated
12.04.2017
was
quashed by this Court, the plea based on
the decision of the Selection Committee
for carrying forward the vacancies to the
year
2017
is
not
available
to
the
respondents - High court found the Office
Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 contrary
to
the
Rules
and
Judgment
dated
08.05.2019. (Para 25 and 32)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,769 of 53,796. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39769 for what follows._

9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
519
(2021)09ILR A519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Service Bench No. 1704 of 2020

Navneet Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Apoorva Tewari, Aditya Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Neerav Chitravanshi, Raj Kumar
Singh

A. Service Law - Administrative Tribunal
Act - Sections 6(3) &8(2) - Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of
Members), Rules 2011 - R. 11 - Central
Administrative Tribunal - Post of Judicial
member - Retirement - Extension of term
- Selection Committee recommended for
extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner with the concurrence of the
Chief
Justice
of
India
-
However,
Department of Personnel and training
(DoPT) refused extension, which was
approved by the Appointments Committee
of the Cabinet (ACC) relying upon letter
dated 12.04.2017, though this letter has
already been quashed by the High Court
vide order dated 08.05.2019 - Validity -
Held, once the decision contained in the
letter/order
dated
12.04.2017
was
quashed by this Court, the plea based on
the decision of the Selection Committee
for carrying forward the vacancies to the
year
2017
is
not
available
to
the
respondents - High court found the Office
Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 contrary
to
the
Rules
and
Judgment
dated
08.05.2019. (Para 25 and 32)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. R. S. Mittal Vs U.O.I. [1995 Supp (2) SCC
230]
2. U.O.I. & ors.Vs Kali Dass Batish; [2006 (1)
SCC 779]
3. St. of Bihar Vs Dr. Braj Kumar Mishra & ors.
1999 (9) SCC 546
4. Comptroller &Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi & anr. Vs K. S. Jagannathan
& anr.; 1986 (2) SCC 679
5. Badri Nath Vs St. of T.N. & ors. (2000) 8 SCC
395
6. Major General H. M. Singh, VS U.O.I. & anr.
(2014) 3 SCC 670
7. Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs Jagdishbhai
M. Kamalia & ors. (2004) 2 SCC 65
8. Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. Vs The Chief
Election Commissioner & ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. These proceedings under Article 226 of
the constitution of India have been instituted
assailing the decision of the Competent
Authority of the Central Government, whereby
the proposal of Department of Personnel and
Training (hereinafter referred to as "DoPT") for
denial of extension of term of appointment of
the petitioner as Judicial Member in Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as "CAT") has been approved. This decision
has been taken in purported compliance of the
judgment and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.6640 (S/B) of
2017.

2. Challenge herein has also been
made
to
the
communication
dated
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.10.2019 made by the DoPT whereby it
has been informed that the matter relating
to extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner was placed before Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet (herein after
referred to as "ACC") and the ACC has
approved the denial of extension of the
term of the petitioner for another term as
Judicial Member of CAT.

3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Aditya Tewari for the petitioner and Shri S.
B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India along with Shri Raj
Kumar Singh, for the respondents. We have
also perused the original records, which
have been produced before us by the
learned
counsel
representing
the
respondents.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has
argued that the impugned decision and the
resultant communication are completely
illegal and erroneous for the reason that in
the present case it is revealed that the ACC
did not take independent decision in the
matter and as a matter of fact, the decision
taken by the ACC was vitiated for the
reason
that
it
was
based
on
the
recommendation of the DoPT which
procedure is not available in the rules
governing the extension of term of
appointment of a member of CAT. It has
further been argued that since the rules
governing the extension of term of a
member of CAT do not envisage any
recommendation to be made by the DoPT
as such the procedure adopted in this case
for arriving at the impugned decision is not
only alien to the scheme of the rules but
this recommendation is a material which is
extraneous and thus could not have been
considered.
Further,
learned
Senior
Advocate has stated that, in fact, as per the
scheme
of
the
rules
governing
the
extension of term of a member of CAT, it
is only the recommendation of the
Selection Committee to be headed by none
other than a sitting Judge of the Supreme
Court and the views of the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India along with any other
material which may have some bearing and
reflection on the candidature of the person
concerned, can be taken into account and
since
in
this
case
it
is
the
recommendation/proposal submitted by the
DoPT for denying the extension of term of
appointment of the petitioner which has
been approved as such the decision making
process adopted by the ACC to arrive at the
impugned decision is erroneous and against
the provisions contained in the rules.

5. Shri Tiwari, learned Senior
Advocate has also submitted that the
exercise undertaken by the Secretariat of
the
ACC
by
inviting
the
proposal/recommendation from the DoPT
is even against the mandate of the judgment
and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by this
Court in the earlier Writ Petition filed by
the
petitioner,
namely,
writ
petition
No.6640 (S/B) of 2017. He has further
submitted that the reasons which can be
culled out for denying the extension of term
of the appointment of the petitioner in this
case are in fact non-existent, in asmuchas
the proposal submitted by the DoPT to the
ACC for denying the extension of term of
the appointment of the petitioner only
makes
mention
of
three
additional
complaints which were already examined
by this Court in its judgment dated
08.05.2019 and were found not to be
adverse to the petitioner's candidature. In
this view the submission is that even the
proposal submitted by the DoPT on which
the approval by the ACC is said to have
been accorded, is based on non-existent
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
521
material which can reflect upon the
candidature of the petitioner adversely or is
in any manner not befitting to the nature of
the office for which extension of term was
considered. Lastly, it has been argued by
the learned Senior Advocate that in case
this Court comes to the conclusion that this
petition deserves to be allowed, instead of
remitting the matter to the Competent
Authority
i.e.
the
ACC,
appropriate
direction for extension of term of the
appointment of the petitioner may be issued
by this Court itself.

6. It has been stated that since in the
present case Selection Committee had
recommended for extension of term of
appointment of the petitioner which was
concurred by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice
of India, as such in view of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of R. S. Mittal vs. Union of India,
reported in [1995 Supp (2) SCC 230], such
recommendation ought to have been
approved unless there was some justifiable
reason to decline the same. Reliance has
also been placed on behalf of the petitioner
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India and others vs. Kali
Dass Batish, reported in [2006 (1) SCC
779] to bring home the ground that if the
legislature has reposed faith in the Chief
Justice of India as the pater familias of the
Judicial hierarchy, it would normally not be
open to contend for any one that the Chief
Justice of India might have given his
concurrence without application of mind or
without calling for necessary inputs.

7. In support of the submission that
this Court is fully competent and well
within its jurisdiction to pass appropriate
orders and to give appropriate direction in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
instead of remitting the matter to the
Competent Authority, reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner on the judgments in the case
of (i) State of Bihar vs. Dr. Braj Kumar
Mishra and others, reported in [1999 (9)
SCC 546], (ii) Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, Gian Prakash, New
Delhi and another vs. K. S. Jagannathan
and another, reported in [1986 (2) SCC
679], and (iii) Badri Nath Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and others, reported in
[(2000) 8 SCC 395]. Reliance has also
been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Major
General H. M. Singh, VSM vs. Union of
India and another, reported in [(2014) 3
SCC 670) to emphasize the argument that
respondents cannot be said to be justified in
taking the impugned decision as the same is
not justifiable by the reasons in support
thereof. It has also been argued that if any
statutory authority takes a decision on the
suggestion or at the behest of an extraneous
authority, the same would be vitiated. In
support of this submission reliance has
been placed on the judgment in the case of
Bahadursinh
Lakhubhai
Gohil
vs.
Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and others,
reported in [(2004) 2 SCC 65], Mohinder
Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief
Election
Commissioner
and
others,
reported in [(1978) 1 SCC 405.

8. Shri S. B. Pandey, learned
Assistant Solicitor General of India, who
has ably been assisted by Shri Raj Kumar
Singh has countered the submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and has submitted that the
decision of the ACC which is under
challenge herein, has been taken strictly in
accordance with law and that there is no
deviation
therefrom.
He
has
further
submitted that the ACC was well within its
competence to have called for inputs
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
available with the DoPT for the purposes of
arriving at a correct conclusion in respect
of the candidature of the petitioner who
was seeking extension of his term of
appointment
and
if
the
recommendation/proposal of the DoPT is
viewed in this perspective, the impugned
decision whereby the ACC has accorded its
approval cannot be faulted with. He has
further stated that earlier, recommendation
made by the Selection Committee was
returned back and thereafter the entire
matter was placed before the Selection
Committee which took a decision to carry
forward
the
vacancy
against
which
petitioner's
term
for
extension
of
appointment was being considered to the
vacancies pertaining to the year 2017 and
this decision of the Selection Committee
was also concurred by the Chief Justice of
India on 06.04.2017, as such the matter at
that point of time itself became final and
stood closed. His further submission is that
the proposal made by the DoPT which has
been approved by the ACC, thus, cannot be
termed to be a recommendation or material
extraneous to the procedure prescribed in
the Rules; it should rather be treated to be
only an input provided by the DoPT to aid
the ACC to take a decision as per the
requirement of Rule 9(4) of Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of
Members), Rules 2011 as amended in the
year
2014
vide
notification
dated
21.03.2014. In his submission, the learned
counsel representing the respondents has
stated that the writ petition is highly
misconceived
which
deserves
to
be
dismissed.

9. We have given our anxious
consideration to the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and have, as observed
above, also perused the original record as
produced by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned
counsel representing the Union of India.

10.

Before
adverting
to
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
representing the parties, we may note
certain facts which are not in dispute. The
DoPT,
Government
of
India,
vide
communication dated 19.05.2011 informed
the petitioner that his name was approved
by
the
Competent
Authority
for
appointment to the post of Judicial Member
in the CAT and accordingly by the said
communication,
offer
of
appointment
against the vacancy pertaining to second
half year of 2010 was conveyed to the
petitioner. The petitioner accepted the offer
and accordingly he was appointed as
Judicial Member of CAT vide order dated
30/31.05.2011 and was posted at Calcutta
Bench of the Tribunal. Subsequently he
was, however, transferred to Lucknow
Bench of the Tribunal. As per the
appointment order dated 30/31.05.2011 the
petitioner was appointed for a period of
five years from the date of his assumption
of charge or till the age of 65 years,
whichever was earlier. The petitioner in
terms of the said order dated 30/31.05.2011
was to complete the term of appointment of
five years in the month of May, 2016.
However, in terms of the provisions
contained in the Rules governing the
extension of term of appointment of the
Members of CAT, the Chairman of CAT
made a recommendation to the Selection
Committee for extension of the term of the
petitioner. The said recommendation was
considered by the Selection Committee
constituted in terms of the relevant rules
which made a recommendation in favour of
the petitioner for extension of his term. The
said recommendation of the Selection
Committee was sent for orders of the
Competent Authority together with the
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
523
views of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
The record produced before us as also the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents
reveal that the Selection Committee had
made
recommendation
in
favour
of
extending the term of the petitioner as
Member of CAT and the views of Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India were also
expressed in favour of extension of his
term.

11. It appears that since no decision
on the recommendation made by the
selection committee together with the
views of the Chief Justice of India was
communicated
to
the
petitioner,
he
instituted a writ petition before this Court,
namely, Writ Petition No.6640 (S/B) of
2017 wherein initially a prayer was made to
issue necessary order for extension of his
term in furtherance of the recommendations
of the Selection Committee. When the
counter affidavit in the said writ petition
was filed and it was intimated through
counter affidavit to the petitioner that vide
Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2017 the
Competent Authority in the ACC has
returned the proposal for extension of his
term, the petitioner moved an amendment
application in the writ petition seeking
quashing of the said Office Memorandum.
By the counter affidavit filed in the earlier
writ petition, a communication dated
12.04.2017 from DoPT was also brought to
the notice of the petitioner whereby it was
informed that the Competent Authority had
returned the proposal of extension of term
of appointment of the petitioner and that
the same was placed before the Selection
Committee for consideration whereupon
the selection committee recommended to
carry forward the vacancy against which
the extension of the term of appointment of
the petitioner was sought, to vacancies of
the year 2017. The said decision for
carrying forward the vacancy to the year
2017 contained in the communication dated
12.04.2017 was also challenged by the
petitioner by amending the Writ Petition
No.6640 (S/B) of 2017. At this juncture
itself
we
may
notice
that
the
decision/recommendation of the Selection
Committee
for
carrying
forward
the
vacancies to the year 2017, was concurred
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India on
06.04.2017.

12. Writ Petition No.6640 (S/B) of
2017 was decided by a Division Bench of
this Court vide judgment and order dated
08.05.2019.
The
said
judgment
was
furnished to the DoPT by the petitioner for
compliance
which,
according
to
the
averments made in the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents, was sent to the
ACC Secretariat on 04.06.2019 for taking
further necessary action in the matter. The
counter affidavit further states that the
ACC Secretariat vide Office Memorandum
dated 14.06.2019 desired the DoPT to
convey its specific recommendation/views
on the proposal for extension of term of the
appointment of petitioner before the ACC
for consideration. Pursuant to the said
Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019
issued by the ACC Secretariat, the DoPT
sent the proposal to the ACC Secretariat on
23.08.2019 for orders of the Competent
Authority purportedly under Rule 9(4) of
Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for
Appointment of Members), Rules 2011 as
amended in the year 2014. It is this
approval accorded by the ACC to the
proposal of the DoPT for denying the
extension of the term of the petitioner
which is under challenge in this writ
petition.

13. For proper adjudication of the issues
involved in this writ petition, it would be
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appropriate to make a mention of certain
provisions contained in the Administrative
Tribunals Act and the relevant Rules. Sub
section 3 of section 6 of the Act provides that
the Chairman and every other Member of the
Central Administrative Tribunal shall be
appointed after consultation with the Chief
Justice of India, by the President. Section 8(2)
of the said Act provides that a Member of the
Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five
years from the date he enters upon his office
and such term is extendable by one more
term of five years. It further provides that no
Member shall hold office after he has attained
the age of 65 years. Thus, section 8(2) of the
said Act permits extension of term of
appointment of a Member of the CAT subject
to the condition that such extension would
not be permissible after the Member
concerned attains the age of 65 years. Section
6(3) and Section 8(2) of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 are extracted herein
below:

"Section 6(3):- The Chairman
and every other Member of the Central
Administrative
Tribunal
shall
be
appointed after consultation with the
Chief Justice of India by the President.

Section 8(2): A Member shall
hold office as such for a term of five years
from the date on which he enters upon his
office extendable by one more term of five
years."

Provided that no Member shall
hold office as such after he has attained
the age of 65 years.

14. The Central Government in
exercise of its power vested in it by section
36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 has framed rules which govern the
procedure for appointment of Members of
the Tribunal. The Rules also govern
extension of term of appointment of a
Member of CAT. These rules are known as
Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for
Appointment of Members), Rules 2011.
The said Rules, 2011 were amended by the
Central Government vide notification dated
21.03.2014 and the amending Rules are
called as the Administrative Tribunal
(Procedure for Appointment of Members)
Amendments Rules, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Amendment Rules
2014"). The Rules notified on 30.12.2011
are extracted herein below:

"MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 30th December , 2011

G.S.R.923(E).--In
exercise
of
powers conferred by clause (c) of Section
36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
I985 (13 of 1985) and in supersession of
the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure
for appointment of Vice-Chairmen and
Members) Rules, 2006, except as respects
thing done or omitted to be done before
such
supersession.
The
Central
Government hereby makes the following
rules, namely:-

1.
Short
title
and
commencement.-(1) These rules may be
called
the
Administrative
Tribunals
(Procedure for appointment of Members)
Rules, 2011.

(2) They shall come into force on
the date of their publication in the Official
Gazette.

2. Definition.- In these rules,
unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a).
"Act"means
the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13
of1985) ;

(b) "Section' means a section of
the Act;
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
525

(c)
"Tribunal"
means
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
in
relation to the Central and the State
Administrative Tribunal in relation to a
State.

3. Composition of the Selection
Committee.

(1) For Selection of Members of
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal.
There shall be a Selection Committee for
the purpose of selection of the Members of
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
consisting of the following namely,

(i) A sitting Judge of the
Supreme Court nominated by the Chief
Justice of India-Chairman:

(ii)
Chairman,
Central
Administrative Tribunal-Member:

(iii) Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of
Personnel and Training)-Member:

(iv) Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Legal Affairs)-Member:

(2) For selection of Members of
the State Administrative Tribunals-There
shall be a Selection Committee of the
concerned State Government for the
purpose of selection of Members of the
concerned State Administrative Tribunal
consisting of the following, namely,

(i) Chief Justice of the High
Court of the concerned State-Chairman:

(ii)
Chief
Secretary
of
the
concerned State Government-Member:

(iii) Chairman of the State
Administrative Tribunal of the concerned
State-Member:

(iv) Chairman of Public Service
Commission of the concerned StateMember:

4. Vacancies.- The anticipated
vacancies of Members that is those arising
between January to December of the each
calendar year shall be placed before the
Selection Committee and the Chairman of
the Administrative Tribunal concerned
shall indicate the number of vacancies of
Members to be filled from the judicial
stream and the administrative stream
respectively whereupon the procedure to
fill up the vacancies accordingly, shall be
initiated by the Department of Personnel
and Training of the Central Government
or the Department concerned of' the State
Government, as the case may be.

5.
Procedure
for
inviting
applications and processing of candidates:
(1) Central Administrative Tribunal.

(i) The Selection Committee
referred to in sub rule (l) of Rule 3 shall
devise its own procedure or lay down the
guidelines for inviting applications and
for the selection of Members of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.

(ii) The Selection Committee
shall recommend persons for appointment
as Members from amongst the persons on
the list of candidates prepared by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training after writing to the various
cadres controlling authorities.

(iii) The Central Government,
shall after taking into consideration the
recommendations
of
the
Selection
Committee, and in consultation with the
Chief Justice of India in accordance with
the provisions contained in sub-section (3)
of section 6, make a final list of persons
for appointment as Members of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2)
State
Administrative
Tribunal:-

(i) The Selection Committee
referred to in sub rule (2) of Rule 3 the
concerned Stat Government shall devise
its own procedure or lay down guidelines
for inviting applications and for the
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
selections
of
the
Members
of
Administrative Tribunal of the State
concerned.

(ii) The Selection Committee
shall
recommend
persons
for
appointment as Members from amongst
the persons on the list the candidates
prepared by the Chief Secretary or
Secretary,
General
Administration
Department or Personnel Department
of the State Government after writing to
the
various
cadre
controlling
authorities of the State.

(iii) The State Government
shall after taking into consideration the
recommendations
of
the
Selection
Committee make a list of persons
selected and send the same with its
recommendations
to
the
Central
Government who shall in consultation
with the Chief Justice India and in
accordance
with
the
provisions
contained in sub section (4) of Section
6,
appoint
Members
of
the
Administrative Tribunal of the State
concerned.

(6) Meetings of the Selection
Committee.-
(1)
The
Selection
Committee shall normally hold its
meeting at New Delhi in the case of the
Central Administrative Tribunal and at
the State capital of the State concerned
in the case of the State Administrative
Tribunal or at such other place as may
be decided by the Chairman of the
concerned
Selection
Committee
by
recording the reasons for the change of
the venue the Committee.

(2) The notice or Agenda as
the case may be, for meeting of the
Selection Committee shall be issued in
advance.

3. The date and venue for the
meeting shall be fixed in consultation
with the Chairman of the Committee.

4. The quorum for the meeting
at a Selection Committee shall be the
Chairman and at least one other
Member.

7. Consultation with the Chief
Justice of India.- (1) For selection of a
Member of the Central Administrative
Tribunal the Chief Justice of India
shall be consulted in accordance with
the provisions of sub-section (3) of
Section 6 and the recommendation of
the Selection Committee referred to in
sub-rule (1) of rule 3 shall accordingly
be placed before him for his views.

(2) The recommendations of the
Selection Committee, together with the
views of the Chief Justice of India shall be
submitted to the Competent Authority for
orders:

8.
Consultation
with
the
Governor.- (1) For selection of a Member
of State Administrative Tribunal the
Governor of the concerned State shall be
consulted by the State Government and
for this purpose the recommendations of
the Selection Committee referred to in sub
rule (2) of rule 3 shall be placed before
him.

(2)
After
consulting
the
concerned Governor under sub rule (1)
the recommendations of the Selection
Committee together with the views of the
Governor shall be forwarded to the
Central Government and that Government
shall seek the orders of the competent
authorities."

15. The Amendment Rules 2014 are
also extracted herein below:

"MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 21st March, 2014
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
527

G.S.R. 205 (E).--In exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (c) of
section 36 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 (13 of 1985), the Central
Government hereby makes the following
rules further to amend the Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of
Members) Rules, 2011, namely:-

1. (1) These rules may be called
the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure
for appointment of Members) Amendment
Rules, 2014.

(2) They shall come into force on
the date of their publication in the Official
Gazette.

2.
In
the
Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for appointment of
Members)
Rules,
2011
(hereinafter
referred to as the said rules), in rule 7
after sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule
shall be inserted, namely:--

"(1A) For selection of a Member
of the State Administrative Tribunal, the
Chief Justice of India shall be consulted
in accordance with the provisions of subsection
(4)
of
section
6
and
the
recommendations
of
the
Selection
Committee referred to in sub-rule (2) of
rule 3 shall accordingly be placed before
him for his views".

3. In the said rules, after rule 8,
the following rules shall be inserted,
namely:--

"9.
Extension
of
term
of
appointment of Member of the Central
Administrative
Tribunal.--(1)
The
Chairman of the Central Administrative
Tribunal may recommend the names of
the
Members
with
justification
for
extension of their term of appointment to
the Central Government in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 8.

(2)
The
proposal
of
the
Chairman of the Tribunal shall be placed
before the Selection Committee referred to
in sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and the Selection
Committee may make recommendations
for extension of term of appointment of
such Members to the Central Government.

(3) The Chief Justice of India
shall be consulted in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 6
and the recommendation of the Selection
Committee referred to in sub rule (1) of
rule 3 shall accordingly be placed before
him for his views.

(4) The recommendations of the
Selection Committee, together with the
views of the Chief Justice of India shall be
submitted to the Competent Authority for
orders.

10.
Extension
of
term
of
appointment of Member of the State
Administrative
Tribunal.--(1)
The
Chairman of the State Administrative
Tribunal may recommend the names of
the
Members
with
justification
for
extension of their term of appointment to
the concerned State Government in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 8.

(2)
The
proposal
of
the
Chairman of the Tribunal shall be placed
before the Selection Committee referred to
in sub-rule (2) of rule 3 and the Selection
Committee may make recommendations
for extension of term of appointment of
such Members to the State Government
concerned.

(3)
The
Governor
of
the
concerned State shall be consulted by the
State Government and for this purpose the
recommendation
of
the
Selection
Committee referred to in sub-rule (2) of
rule 3 shall be placed before him.

(4)
After
consulting
the
concerned Governor under sub-rule (3),
the recommendations of the Selection
Committee together with the views of the
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Governor shall be forwarded to the
Central Government and that Government
after consulting the Chief Justice of India
shall seek the orders of the competent
authorities."

16. By introducing 2014 Amendment
Rules, Rule 9 in 2011 Rules was added which
provides for procedure for extension of term
of appointment of Members of Tribunal. Rule
9 contains the entire scheme of consideration
of extension of term of appointment of
Members, according to which the process is
initiated by the Chairman of the Tribunal.
Rule 9(1) provides that the Chairman of the
CAT may recommend the names of the
Members with justification for extension of
their term of appointment to the Central
Government
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of Section 8(2). As per sub rule 2
of rule 9, the proposal of the Chairman of the
Tribunal is to be placed before the Selection
Committee constituted under Rule 3(1)
whereupon the Selection Committee is to
make recommendation for extension of term
of appointment to the Central Government.
Once such recommendation by the Selection
Committee is made for extension of term of
appointment of a Member, under Rule 9(3)
the Chief Justice of India is to be consulted in
accordance with the provisions of section 6
(3) of the Act. The recommendations made
by the Selection Committee are to be placed
before the Chief Justice of India for his
views. Sub rule 4 of rule 9 provides that the
recommendation of the Selection Committee
along with the views of the Chief Justice of
India are to be submitted to the Competent
Authority for orders. At this very juncture,
we may point out that the Competent
Authority in such matters as per the
Government
of
India
(Transaction
of
Business) Rules, framed under Article 77(3)
of the Constitution of India, is the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
(ACC). We may also notice the composition
of the Selection Committee in terms of Rule
3(1) of the Rules 2011, according to which
such Selection Committee is to comprise of a
sitting Judge of Supreme Court of India to be
nominated by the Chief Justice of India, who
is its Chairman. The Selection Committee
also comprises of the Chairman, CAT, who is
its Member, Secretary to the Government of
India in the Ministry of Personnel and Public
Grievances (Department of Personnel and
Training), who is its second Member and
Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of
Legal Affairs, who is also a Member of the
Selection Committee.

17. The composition of the Selection
Committee as prescribed in Rule 3(1) of the
Rules, 2011 thus makes it clear that it
comprises of persons holding high offices
in the Government as also holding
constitutional office of the Judge of the
Supreme Court of India. The sanctity and
significance attached to such selection is
highlighted by the composition of the
Selection Committee as also the provision
which requires consultation by the Chief
Justice of India. The recommendation, thus,
made by such high powered Selection
Committee on account of the very nature of
its composition itself are, thus, to be kept
and treated at a very pedestal and thus we
have no hesitation to observe that such
recommendation by any such high powered
Selection Committee along with views of
the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India
cannot be negated in absence of any
justifiable reason by any authority.

18. As observed above, the very
composition of the Selection Committee
itself attaches sanctity and purity to its
recommendations. In this case, the fact that
the Selection Committee had already
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
529
recommended for extension of term of
appointment of the petitioner with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of India
has not been denied.

19. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid,
unless we find some justifiable reason for
not accepting such recommendation by the
Competent Authority, the decision denying
petitioner's extension of term of his
appointment, in our considered opinion,
would be illegal and vitiated.

20. While examining the reasons which
form the proposal submitted by the DoPT
denying the extension of the petitioner which
was approved by the Competent Authority
(ACC) we need to refer to the averments
made in paragaraph 15 of the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents. Para 15 of
the said counter affidavit is extracted herein
below:

"15.That it is pertinent to state
that the proposal of DoPT for seeking the
approval of ACC (Competent Authority)
with regard to denial of extension of tenure
of the petitioner was based on the fact that
the Search cum Selection Committee, on
placing before it the decision dated
06.03.2017 of the ACC regarding returning
the proposal, recommended for carrying
forward of those two vacancies to the next
vacancy year and the same was also
concurred by the Hon'ble CJI. Besides this,
three more complaints were received
against Shri Navneet Kumar. Although
those complaints could not be verified due
to non coming forward of the complainants
but it is well accepted that the Judicial
Authority not only should be fair but
should look to be fair and unblemished
also in his conduct and must uphold the
highest standards of integrity to keep trust
of public."

21. For culling out the reason, if any,
which can be said to be available to the
respondents for denying the extension of term
of appointment of the petitioner, we may also
refer to the Office Memorandum dated
14.06.2019, issued from the Secretariat of
ACC, whereby the DoPT was required to
convey its recommendation/proposal. In the
said Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2019
what we find recited is that, "the Departments
have
not
provided
their
specific
recommendation/views on the order dated
08.05.2019 of the High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition
No.6640 (S/B) of 2017: Navneet Kumar vs.
Union Of India Through Secy. Personnel &
Training
&
Anr".
The
said
Office
Memorandum further recites that, "the
Departments are accordingly requested to
convey their specific recommendations/views
on the proposal along with approval of the
Minister Incharge for placing the same
before ACC for consideration".

22. We may also examine at this
juncture itself the proposal submitted by
the DoPT vide Office Memorandum dated
23.08.2019
pursuant
to
the
Office
Memorandum dated 14.06.2019. The said
Office Memorandum, as is available on
record placed before us by the learned
counsel representing the Union of India,
only recites the order of this Court dated
09.05.2019 and thereafter reproduces sub
rule 4 of rule 9 of Rules 2011 as amended
in 2014 and then it states that "three
complaints were received from different
quarters in DoPT against Shri Navneet
Kumar. While the proposal for extension of
tenure for his second term along with the
status of those three complaints was still
under consideration of ACC, three more
complaints were received by the DoPT".
This proposal further recites that, "
although those complaints could not be
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
verified due to non coming forward of the
complainants, but it is a fact that these
three complaints were received by the
Government thereby casting a shadow on
the working of the Hon'ble Member". The
proposal also recites that, "it is well
accepted that the Judicial Authority should
not only be fair but should look to be fair
also in his conduct and must uphold the
highest standards of integrity to keep trust
of public." Accordingly the proposal states
that "keeping all in this view the Competent
Authority decided not to recommend the
officer for the said extension". The said
Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2019
records its proposal as " issue of order
conveying the decision of the ACC with
regard to denial of extension of tenure in
respect
of
Shri
Navneet
Kumar
in
compliance
of
the
direction
dated
09.05.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad (Lucknow Bench)".

23. What we thus find from the above
recorded facts is that once the order passed
by this Court was submitted before the
ACC, its Secretariat directed the DoPT to
furnish its recommendation in respect of
extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner vide Office Memorandum dated
14.06.2019
whereupon
vide
Office
Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 DoPT
submitted
its
recommendation/proposal
which is negatively worded and is based
upon only one reason that is the complaints
said to have been received against the
petitioner. What we also notice from a
perusal of the averments made in paragraph
15 of the counter affidavit is that basis of
proposal made by the DoPT vide Office
Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 was the
complaints as mentioned in the said Office
Memorandum as also the decision of the
Selection Committee dated 06.03.2017
whereby the vacancy against which the
petitioner's
extension
of
term
of
appointment was being considered, was
carried forward to the vacancies of the year
2017 which was concurred by the Chief
Justice of India.

24. We thus, now proceed to examine
the
reasons
indicated
in
the
proposal/recommendation of the DoPT on
the basis of which the impugned decision
by approving the said proposal has been
taken by the ACC.

25. As regards the plea taken by the
respondents based on the decision of the
Selection Committee for carrying forward
the vacancies to the year 2017, we may
observe that it is noticeable that the said
decision has been expressed in the
letter/order dated 12.04.2017 which was
challenged by the petitioner by way of
seeking amendment in the earlier writ
petition, namely, Writ Petition No.6640
(S/B) of 2017. The Court while deciding
the aforesaid writ petition vide its judgment
and order dated 08.05.2019 allowed the
writ petition while quashing the orders
challenged in the writ petition. Opening
sentence of the decision dated 08.05.2019
passed by this Court makes a mention as to
what was challenged in said writ petition
and the challenge included challenge to the
letter/order dated 12.04.2017.