The Central Administrative Tribunal (Guwahati Bench) Bar Association has petitioned the Gauhati High Court to overturn the nomination of retired Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, as chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) [Central Administrative Tribunal (Guwahati Bench) Bar Association vs Union of India].
Last week, single-judge Justice Michael Zothankhuma heard the issue and requested the Central government to seek instructions before listing the case for consideration in two weeks.
In its petition, the bar association claimed that the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) responsible for the appointment breached the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules enacted under the Act by proposing Justice More’s nomination.
According to reports, the Department of Personnel and Training published a vacancy circular for the position of CAT chairperson on April 4, 2022.
The application had to be supported by vigilance clearance in the instance of a former High Court Judge or government civil worker, as well as particular information on experience managing cases in the tribunal and five important achievements.
The advertising further stated that no incomplete applications would be accepted.
However, the SCSC received a number of such petitions from retired public workers and High Court judges that were incomplete but were still evaluated, according to the information that was presented.
According to the plea, such incomplete applications were nonetheless accepted in breach of Rules 4 (2), (4), and 5 (2) of the Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, as well as the particular requirements of the April 4, 2022 vacancy announcement.
“Such consideration by the SCSC is invalid ab initio and manifestly not sustainable in the light of the law,” according to the petition.
Furthermore, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and the Rules of 2021 issued under the Act offered candidates with considerable service and a lengthy association with the CAT preferential treatment.
However, such applications were not granted the statutorily needed extra weightage, it was claimed.
However, such applications were not granted the statutorily needed extra weightage, it was claimed.
As a result, the bar association requested that the proposal to select Justice More to be “set aside and annulled” since it was “made in contravention of the regulations and terms of the advertisement of April 4.”
The petitioner further requested that the SCSC be formed to make new recommendations after thoroughly reviewing the applications submitted in accordance with the regulations and the advertising.
Justice More, a Bombay High Court judge, was moved to the Meghalaya High Court in March 2020. He was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court in October 2021 and retired on November 3 of the same year.
As a result, the bar association requested that the proposal to select Justice More to be “set aside and annulled” since it was “made in contravention of the regulations and terms of the advertisement of April 4.”
The petitioner further requested that the SCSC be formed to make new recommendations after thoroughly reviewing the applications submitted in accordance with the regulations and the advertising.
Justice More, a Bombay High Court judge, was moved to the Meghalaya High Court in March 2020. He was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court in October 2021 and retired on November 3 of the same year.