Maximum tenure for Tribunal Members is capped at ten years under the amended appointment scheme.

Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is read as fixing a Member's term at five years, extendable by one further five-year term, with an outer age limit of sixty-five years. Section 10A preserves prior service for persons appointed before the amendment, but fresh consideration remains subject to the amended eligibility scheme and the overall ten-year ceiling for Members. Read together, the provisions reflect a legislative intent to cap total tenure at ten years and prevent an interpretation that would allow reappointment beyond that limit. The construction also avoids anomalous results and gives effect to the statute's plain language.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who has already served as a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal for a total period of ten years can claim eligibility for fresh appointment as Member again on the basis that he otherwise satisfies the qualification criteria under the Act.

Analysis: The amended scheme of Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 fixes the term of office of a Member at five years, extendable by one further term of five years, and the proviso restricts holding office beyond the age of sixty-five years. Section 10A, being a saving provision for persons appointed before the amendment, preserves prior service but makes fresh consideration conditional upon eligibility under the amended Section 8 and subject to the outer limit of ten years for Members. Read as a whole, the provisions show a clear legislative intent to cap the total tenure of a Member at ten years. The Court also held that this interpretation avoids anomalous results and gives effect to the statute as enacted.

Conclusion: A Member of the Tribunal who has completed ten years in office is not eligible for fresh appointment as Member again; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly fixes a maximum total tenure for a statutory office, the Court must give effect to that limit according to the plain language of the provision and cannot treat prior service as creating eligibility for a further appointment beyond the prescribed ceiling.

---