RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09/12/1986 MISRA RANGNATH MISRA RANGNATH BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J) CITATION: 1987 AIR 386 1987 SCR (1) 435 1987 SCC (1) 124 JT 1986 996 1986 SCALE (2)960 CITATOR INFO : F 1987 SC 357 (2) F 1987 SC 663 (2) APL 1989 SC 44 (4) RF 1989 SC 653 (11) F 1989 SC1185 (8) R 1989 SC1933 (7) RF 1990 SC1137 (3) ACT: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: ss. 4, 5, 6 & 28Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 in service mattersConstitutional validity ofChairman, ViceChairman and MembersQualifications and mode of appointment to make the Tribunal equally efficacious and effective alternative to the High Court Benches and Circuits of TribunalSetting up of. Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227, 32, 136, 323A and 368Judicial review Exclusion of When permissible. HEADNOTE: Clause (1) of Art. 323A, brought in by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, authorised Parliament to provide by law for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to re cruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. Clause (2)(d) of that Article envisaged exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 136 with re spect to the disputes or complaints referred to in cl. (1). Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 originally enacted within the ambit of Art. 323A, provided for exclusion of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32. The Act as amended by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, replaced by Act No. 19 of 1987 now saves the jurisdiction of Supreme Court both under Art. 32 in respect of original proceedings as also under Art. 136 for entertaining appeals. Section 6(1)of the Act which lays down qualifications of Chairman, states that he should be or have been (a) a Judge of a High Court, or (b) has for at least two years held office of ViceChairman, or (c) has for at least two years held the post of Secretary to the Govern ment of India. Subsection (2) provides that a ViceChairman should be or have been (a) a Judge of a High Court, or (b) for at least two years held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India, or (bb) for at least five years held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, or (c) for a period of not less than three years held office as a Judicial Member of an Administrative Tribunal. Sub section (3) states that the Judicial Member (a) should or should have been qualified to be a Judge of a High 436 Court, or (b) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service, Grade 1, for at least three years. Subsection (3A) provides that a person to be appointed as Administrative Member (a) should have for at least two years held the post of Addi tional Secretary to the Government of India, or (b) has for at least three years held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioners in these writ petitions and transfer petitions challenged the vires of the 1985 Act. It was contended that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 in service matters specified in s.28 of the Act was unconstitutional and void, and that the composition of the Tribunal and mode of appointment of Chairman, ViceChairman and Members was outside the scope of the power conferred on Parliament under Art. 323A. Allowing the petitions in part, the Court, By the Court HELD: It is the High Court which is being supplanted by Administrative Tribunal. The office of Chairman of the Tribunal, therefore, for all practical purposes should be equated with the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court. Judicial discipline generated by experience and training in an adequate dose is a necessary qualification for that post. It is thus essential that he should have been a Judge of the High Court or he should have for at least two years held office as ViceChairman. A person who has merely held the post of Secretary to the Government of India and who has no legal and judicial experience if appointed Chair man would not only fail to inspire confidence in the public mind but would also render the Administrative Tribunal a much less effec