Tribunal appointments upheld where selection committee direction was advisory and no fraud, bias, or illegality was proved.

The SC treated the earlier direction for a High Powered Selection Committee as an advisory safeguard to secure Tribunal independence, not an inflexible mandatory invalidating appointments made after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. It also held that the appointments were not shown to be vitiated by fraud, bias, or procedural illegality, because the appointees were eligible and the High Court had relied too heavily on administrative file notings without giving an effective opportunity to respond. The quashing order was set aside, the writ petition was dismissed, and consequential service benefits were directed to follow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the direction in the earlier decision that a High Powered Selection Committee should be involved in the appointment process for the Tribunal was mandatory so as to invalidate appointments made after consultation with the Chief Justice of India; (ii) whether the appointments to the Tribunal were vitiated on the facts by fraud, bias, or procedural illegality, and whether the High Court could quash them on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether the direction in the earlier decision that a High Powered Selection Committee should be involved in the appointment process for the Tribunal was mandatory so as to invalidate appointments made after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Analysis: The earlier decision was read as aiming to secure independence and efficacy of the Tribunal as a substitute for the High Court. The requirement of a High Powered Selection Committee was treated as one method suggested to achieve that object, not as the only mandatory mode. The amended provision requiring consultation with the Chief Justice of India was not held to be invalid merely because it did not reproduce the suggested committee mechanism, especially where the appointments had in fact been approved through the constitutional and administrative process contemplated by the Court.

Conclusion: The direction to constitute a High Powered Selection Committee was advisory in character, and the amendment and appointments were not vitiated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointments to the Tribunal were vitiated on the facts by fraud, bias, or procedural illegality, and whether the High Court could quash them on that basis.

Analysis: The appointees were qualified and eligible, and the record did not justify findings of fraud or self-serving manipulation. The High Court had relied heavily on file notings without affording the affected parties an effective opportunity to answer those inferences, which offended natural justice. The Court held that the High Court had read too much into the administrative file and that no legal infirmity was shown to warrant invalidation of the appointments.

Conclusion: The appointments were not shown to be fraudulent or otherwise invalid, and the High Court's quashing order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, the appellants were entitled to resume office and consequential service benefits, and the original writ petition stood dismissed with exemplary costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may not invalidate Tribunal appointments on speculative inferences from administrative records where the appointees are eligible, the constitutional approval process has been followed, and the suggested appointment mechanism was intended as an advisory safeguard for independence rather than an inflexible mandatory rule.

---