Tribunal appointment eligibility: courts cannot restrict statutory categories to one class or ignore administrative service experience.

The text explains that a court cannot, without pleadings or notice to affected parties, issue sweeping directions confining appointments to one statutory eligibility category or extend that restriction to other tribunals. It also states that Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides multiple qualifying classes for appointment as Vice-Chairman, including categories reflecting administrative service experience, consistent with the Tribunal scheme approved in earlier constitutional decisions. The statutory framework recognises a mix of judicial and administrative expertise, and a court cannot neutralise the remaining categories by direction without striking down the provision. The resulting appeal restored the statutory eligibility framework and left the unresolved dispute to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could direct that appointments to the post of Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal be made only from persons falling within Section 6(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and extend that direction to other tribunals without pleadings or notice to affected parties; (ii) Whether Section 6(2)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permit appointment of administrative service members as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could direct that appointments to the post of Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal be made only from persons falling within Section 6(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and extend that direction to other tribunals without pleadings or notice to affected parties.

Analysis: The pleadings did not raise the question decided by the High Court, and the parties were not at issue on that point. The High Court also travelled beyond the controversy before it by issuing sweeping directions affecting other tribunals and affected authorities who had not been noticed. A writ court must ordinarily decide the case on the points raised, and if additional issues are to be considered, the affected parties must be put on notice. A direction that effectively neutralises statutory provisions without striking them down cannot be issued in this manner.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and its directions on these matters were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 6(2)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permit appointment of administrative service members as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 6 of the Act expressly contains multiple eligibility categories for Vice-Chairman, including persons who have held senior administrative posts and persons who have served as Judicial Members or Administrative Members. Earlier constitutional decisions had upheld the scheme of the Act and had accepted that administrative members could form part of the Tribunal. The governing principle recognised by the Court is that Tribunals were intended to comprise a judicious mix of judicial experience and administrative expertise, and that excluding administrative members altogether would contradict the statutory and constitutional design previously approved.

Conclusion: The High Court was wrong in holding that only persons covered by Section 6(2)(a) could be appointed as Vice-Chairman.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court corrected the High Court's overbroad directions, restored the statutory eligibility framework for appointments, set aside the impugned orders, and sent the unresolved dispute back for decision on merits while declining to adjudicate the separate writ petition on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly provides multiple qualifying categories for appointment, a court cannot, without pleadings or notice and without striking down the provision, confine appointments to one category alone or nullify the remaining statutory categories by direction.

---