Board circular on divergent committee views requires merits hearing; Tribunal cannot reject the matter solely for difference of opinion.

Where a Board circular required an appeal to be filed if the two members of the Committee took divergent views, the Tribunal could not refuse to entertain the matter merely because of that difference of opinion. The High Court held that the circular mandated filing of the appeal in such a situation and that the dispute had to be considered on merits. The Tribunal's approach of treating the internal disagreement as a bar to hearing was therefore untenable, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the difference of opinion among the Chief Commissioners as a bar to filing the appeal and in disposing of the matter without hearing it on merits.

Analysis: The order of the Tribunal was held untenable because the Board's circular contemplated that where the two members of the Committee take different views, the decision should be to file the appeal. In that situation, the Tribunal ought not to have declined consideration on merits merely on the footing that there was a difference of opinion in the Committee.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing on merits.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was not finally decided on merits by the High Court and was sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant administrative circular directs filing of an appeal in case of divergent views within the Committee, the matter must be heard on merits and cannot be rejected solely on the basis of such difference of opinion.

---