Supreme Court Overturns High Court Orders, Remits Case for Expedited Resolution Without Costs.

The SC set aside the HC's interim and final orders, vacated the stay, and remitted the case to the HC for a lawful decision. The HC was urged to expedite the matter's resolution. The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to reapproach the HC. Appeals were allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Qualification for the post of Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
2. Constitutional validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. High Court's jurisdiction and adherence to principles of natural justice.
4. Directions regarding appointments to other Tribunals.

Summary:

1. Qualification for the Post of Vice-Chairman of CAT:
The High Court of Allahabad held that only a sitting or retired High Court Judge or an advocate qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge could be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. This decision was challenged on the grounds that it was not raised in the pleadings nor argued before the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond the points raised by the parties and without striking down the relevant provisions of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Constitutional Validity of Explanation to Section 6 of the Act:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 6 of the Act, claiming it was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court noted that the vires of Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) were not challenged in the writ petition, and the High Court's direction effectively nullified these provisions without proper adjudication.

3. High Court's Jurisdiction and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for deciding on points not raised in the pleadings and for issuing directions without notifying the concerned and affected parties, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The High Court's directions were deemed unsustainable in law.

4. Directions Regarding Appointments to Other Tribunals:
The High Court issued directions that presiding officers of various other Tribunals, such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, should be from judicial backgrounds. The Supreme Court found this direction to be beyond the High Court's jurisdiction and contrary to the established law, which allows for a mix of judicial and administrative members in Tribunals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim and final orders, vacated the stay, and remitted the case back to the High Court for a decision in accordance with the law. The High Court was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The writ petition No. 398 of 2002 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court if so advised. Respondent No. 4, Shri D.C. Verma, was deleted from the array of parties as no relief was claimed against him. Appeals were allowed with no costs.

---