- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of D. K. Agarwal to the office of Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of Agarwal is in violation of S. 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act). Section 6 of the Act provides "a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairman, unless he is (a) is, or has been, (or is qualified to be) a Judge of a High Court; or (b) has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as a Judicial Member of an Administrative Tribunal."
(2.) Agarwal was appointed Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated May 15, 1992. He had attained the age of 62 years on February 27, 1992. The precise argument is that having crossed the age of 62 years, Agarwal could not be considered for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Art. 217(1) of the Constitution of India and as a consequence he became ineligible for appointment as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal under S. 6 of the Act.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not res integra. While interpreting S. 7(3)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is similar to S. 6 of the Act, this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. Their Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1100 held as under (at p. 1104 of AIR) "We agree that there is implicit in Art. 217(1) a prohibition against appointment as a Judge of a person who has attained the age of sixty years. But, in our view, that is in the nature of a condition governing the appointment to the office not a qualification with reference to a person who is to be appointed thereto. There is manifest on the terms and on the scheme of the article a clear distinction between requirements as to the age of a person who could be appointed as a Judge and his fitness based on experience and ability to fill the office. Article 217(1), deals with the former, and, in form, it has reference to the termination of the office and can therefore be properly read only as imposing, by implication, a restriction on making the appointment. In strong contrast to this is Art. 217(2) which expressly refers to the qualifications of the person to be appointed such as his having held a judicial post or having been an Advocate for a period of not less than ten years. We think that on a true construction of the article the prescription as to age is a condition attached to the duration of the office and not a qualification for appointment to it.";