Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Bhakthavatsala's Plea For Re-Appointment As KSAT Chairman
story
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of former Karnataka High Court Judge Justice K. Bhakthavatsala, who is presently, Chairman of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), for reappointment.Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of the bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao to section 184 of the Finance Act, in so much as it...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of former Karnataka High Court Judge Justice K. Bhakthavatsala, who is presently, Chairman of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), for reappointment.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of the bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao to section 184 of the Finance Act, in so much as it provides that the Central Government may make rules to provide for qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or other Authorities. The First Proviso to the section states that the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or other Authority shall hold office for such term as specified in the rules made by the Central Government but not exceeding five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment. The Second Proviso clarifies that no Chairperson, Chairman, President shall hold office as such after he has attained such age as specified in the rules made by the Central Government which shall not exceed the age of seventy years.
He also indicated section 183 which provides that on and from the appointed day, provisions of section 184 shall apply to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice- Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or other Authorities. Its Proviso clarifies that the provisions of section 184 shall not apply to the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or, as the case may be, Member holding such office as such immediately before the appointed day.
Mr. Luthra also indicated section 176 of the Finance Act by virtue of which section 10B has been inserted in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said section 10 B provides that the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other Members of the Tribunal appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act. The Proviso to it lays down that the Chairman and Member appointed before such commencement shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder as if the provisions of section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 had not come into force.
Justice Bhakthavatsala's appointment order is dated December 15, 2015.
"You have completed 5 years' tenure? And you are 67?", asked Justice Hemant Gupta.
"I am 68 years old. The Finance Act has introduced two changes- of making the age 70 years and of reappointment. I am entitled to reappointment. I demit office on the 10th otherwise", replied Mr. Luthra.
Justice Rao inquired about the terms of appointment.
"The appointment order says that I am to be governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act as amended from time-to-time. Today, the amendment has been made- increasing the age upto 70 and of reappointment being permissible", said Mr. Luthra.
"In terms of 184, there is now a provision for re-appointment. I have addressed a letter to the authorities, writing that, one, the age has been increased to 70 years, and two, there is a provision for re-appointment. I have said that this is not a case of continuation or extension. But I am entitled to re-appointment in terms of section 184", argued Mr. Luthra.
"Under the terms of the Proviso, your term is protected. But you cannot seek reappointment", observed Justice Gupta.
"184 says that Rules have to be made. 2017 Rules have been struck down. Under 2020 Rules, there is no re-appointment. Your terms of service will proceed as per Rules only", added Justice Rao.
"You are a retired High Court judge. You work for 5 years and seek re-appointment? No, sorry, dismissed", said the judge.