Supreme Court Issues Notice In Petition Challenging Ongoing Recruitment Process Of Different CATs
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the ongoing recruitment process of Judicial Members for the 19 Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) across the country. A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala heard the petition. The petitioner, Additional Advocate General of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Rajinder Singh Dogra,...
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the ongoing recruitment process of Judicial Members for the 19 Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) across the country. A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala heard the petition.
The petitioner, Additional Advocate General of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Rajinder Singh Dogra, has challenged the internal shortlisting criteria fixed by the search-cum-selection Committee operating under the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India as per which Advocates having crossed the age of 57 years are deemed to be ineligible for appointment as Judicial members of CAT. As per the petition, this is in violation of Section 3 and 5 of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021 which explicitly mentions that the minimum age for appointment is 50 years old and maximum age for retirement is 67 years old with four year renewable tenures.
The petition argues challenged the criteria on the following grounds–
1. The vacancy circular which was issued in December 2022 retrospectively change the selection process which had already started. As per the petition, the rules of the game cannot be changed retrospectively.
2. There is no scope in the statutory provisions for the search committee to fix an internal criteria on the basis of age. The petition states that the search cum selection committee constituted under it shall decide the suitability on the basis of three categories being qualification, experience, and personal interaction. However, as per the petition, the selection committee did not have the power or authority to fix an internal criteria for selection of candidates on the basis of their age.
3. The petition also argued that the internal selection criteria which was adopted could not be in derogation of the eligibility conditions which had already been prescribed.
4. Finally, the petition states that different criteria for the same eligibility condition and for the same post was manifestly arbitrary in nature. This, was violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The manifest arbitrariness in question, as per the petition, was concerning the internal criteria of maximum age being proposed only for Advocates seeking recruitment to the post of judicial members and not for former judges.
The Petition states that the Internal Criteria fixed by the Committee is contrary to the Vacancy Circular as-well as the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Petition seeks quashing of the Internal Criteria Fixed and ensure that the Recruitment Process is carried out in accordance with the Vacancy Circular.
The Writ Petition was argued by Senior Advocate Vinay Navre and has been drawn by Advocate Aditya Manubarwala and filed by AOR Bharat T. Manubarwala. They were assisted by Romit Nandan Sahai, Akriti Manubarwala, Tanishka Grover and Nikhilesh Koundinya.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh Dogra v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 398/2023