Rajendra Prasad Khare and etc v. State of U. P — 1989 DIGILAW 462 (ALL)

JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava - This bunch of writ petitions is directed against the working of Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh. In the four writ petitions filed by individuals prayer has been made for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding U.P. Public Services Tribunal to decide their claim petitions within a month or so or in the alternative transfer their cases to any other Tribunal where the cases can be disposed of expeditiously with a further direction to frame rules for its proper functioning so as to fulfil the object of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. The fifth writ petition has been filed by Civil Diploma Engineers Association with the prayer to declare section 3 of Act 13 of 1976 (U. P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976) as ultra vires to the Constitution so far as it provides the appointment of officers of the rank who hold any post equivalent to the Commissioner of a division to be designated as Administrate Member of the Tribunal and also declare Sections 5(B) and 5(7) of the said Act as ultra vires and for a further mandamus commanding the State of U.P. to amend the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 suitably to achieve its object and reasons as given in the prefatory note, quick and inexpensive justice including powers of the Tribunal to implement its own judgments. It has been further prayed to direct the State of U.P. to fix the sitting hours of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals for dispensing of justice in the Court room and to appoint High Court Judges as Judicial Member to be designated as Chairman of the Tribunal as well as fix the minimum quota for final decision of cases on merits for each Member of the Tribunal separately in single matter cases and devise ways and means to ensure that every claim petition filed in the tribunal is decided on merits within six months of its filing and that all pending cases of the Tribunal are decided within next six months and lastly for quashing the orders passed by opposite parties No. 3 dated 23-9-1988 contained in annexure A. 2. In these petitions the petitioners have high-lighted the sad working or slow functioning of the Public Services Tribunal and thereby causing long delay in disposal of cases because generally there is no administrative member and if there is one in case he prefers to sit only for a short while, his contribution towards disposal of cases is much below appreciable or minimum level. The functioning of the Tribunal for the last ten years indicates that the purpose for which it has been constituted has been frustrated. Cases for last ten years even are pending awaiting disposal. 3. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that lawyers are also responsible for non-disposal of cases and normal working is hampered due to lack of Co-operation avoidable to work and going on strike every now and then and on every Saturday. In the rejoinder affidavit, the allegations have been refuted, it has been contended that as a matter of fact, the position is otherwise and it is non- functioning and the way of functioning is responsible for backlog and non-disposal of cases. In one of the writ petitions reference to disposal of cases has been made and it has been stated that between April and September, 1987, 49 cases have been disposed of out of which only 10 are on merits. As directed by this Court in writ petition No. 8569 of 1988 the Chief Secretary has filed his affidavit the relevant paragraph of which has been verified on information derived from some undisclosed source. The affidavit is thus no affidavit in the eve of law. The reply so given is cryptic. On the basis of some oral information it has been stated that because lawyers come late Tribunal sits at 11 a. m. and works up to 2 p. m. and thereafter the member dictates orders in Chamber as stenographers do not work after working hours. In the affidavit it has not been clearly stated as to whether the Administrative Member also sits for 3 hours or it is the Judicial Member who alone sits for 3 hours. In the affidavit it has not been clearly stated as to whether the Administrative Member also sits for 3 hours or it is the Judicial Member who alone sits for 3 hours. The affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary does not get support from the figure of disposal of cases as in three hours sitting and two hours dictation quite a large number of cases can be disposed of on merits with normal speed in a month but the figure of disposal is so low that it clearly leads to the conclusion that the information given to the Chief Secretary is far away from the correct state of affairs. The adjournment of cases for about one year and then again for the period negatives the plea taken by the State regarding the functioning of the Tribunal for which Tribunal cannot be held to be solely responsible as lawyers are also responsible to some extent for the same. as disclosed in the counter-affidavit. 4. It is possible and two members one with Judicial background and the other with executive background and experience take more time in arriving at a consensus after whenever they assemble for the purpose. The problem of arrears has become a general problem because of the large number of institution of cases, shortage in strength of presiding officers, lawyers and staff strike and at times apathetic and non-cooperative attitude and other factors but despite these factors there can be still much more disposal if excluding the number of days on which there is strike as in Courts working hours are fully utilised by the Tribunal. 5. Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India containing Articles 32-3-A and 323-B were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into effect from 3-1-1976. Article 323-A provides for administrative Tribunal regarding service matters in respect of public services and posts in connection with the affairs of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the Court or Council of India and any corporation and/or controlled by the Government. Article 323-B provides for Tribunal in respect of other matters mentioned. Even before this constitutional Amendment, Tribunal regarding service matter of Public Servant including Government Servant and servant of Statutory Corporation and Bodies etc. had already come into existence in the State of U.P. 6. Article 323-B provides for Tribunal in respect of other matters mentioned. Even before this constitutional Amendment, Tribunal regarding service matter of Public Servant including Government Servant and servant of Statutory Corporation and Bodies etc. had already come into existence in the State of U.P. 6. The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act 1976 was preceded by an ordinance. The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance 1975 was promulgated on 17th September, 1975 and Tribunals were established on November 24, 1975. The said ordinance was to cease to operate in February 1976 as such a fresh ordinance the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance, 1976 was promulgated on February 16, 1976. The statement of objects and reasons for the Act given in the preparatory note are as hereunder. The number of cases in the Courts pertaining to the employment matters of the Government servants was constantly on the increase. This besides increases the work load in the courts, also delayed considerably the disposal of such cases, such litigation also involved money and time of Government servants. In these circumstances it was decided to establish Public Services Tribunals to deal with cases pertaining to employment matter of Government servants and also of the employees of the local authorities and Government corporation and companies, so that employees may get quick and inexpensive justice. It was also decided that after the establishment of Tribunals such suits would be barred from being filed in the subordinate Court 7. As the State Legislature was not in session and it was necessary to take immediate action for carrying out the above purpose, the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance, 1975 was promulgated on September 17, 1975, and the Tribunals were established on November 24, 1975. 8. In the meantime President's Rule was imposed in the State on November 30, 1975 and on account of the commencement of the session of the Parliament on January 5, 1976 the said ordinance would have ceased to operate after February 16, 1976. It was, therefore, considered necessary to repeal and replace the said Ordinance by a fresh Ordinance. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance, 1976 was accordingly promulgated on February 16, 1976. 9. The Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1977, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1980, U. P. Act No. 2 of 1982, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1985. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Ordinance, 1976 was accordingly promulgated on February 16, 1976. 9. The Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1977, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1980, U. P. Act No. 2 of 1982, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1985. By the Act of 1977 the powers of Public Services Tribunal to grant interim orders in matters relating to suspension, dismissal, reduction in rank, termination, compulsory retirement or reversion were taken away altogether. Section 6 of the Act bars a suit against State Government. local authority or any statutory corporation or company in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of a person who is or has been a public servant and in the case of Government servants, servants of local authority and corporation if the act of omission and commission is violative of Article 16, Article 13 or rules framed under Article 309 or Article 313 of the Constitution of India and in the case of other employee referred to earlier is in violation of Article 16 or Rules or Regulation having force under any Act of Legislature constituting such authority or Corporation. After coming in force of the ordinance and the Act the jurisdiction of the court of Munsif or Subordinate Judges, that of District Judge as original, appellate or re visional court that of High Court as Court of second appeal or revision arising of such matter cognizance of which can be taken by the Tribunal has been taken away and the decision of the Tribunal has become final. The same can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India that is the jurisdiction conferred upon it for certain purposes by the Constitution of India. 10. Section 6(2) provides for the abatement of suits, appeals, revision application for review and other incidental or ancillary proceedings arising out of such suits, application or appeal for permission to file such suit or appeal in forma pauperis pending in Court subordinate to the High Court and revision application pending before High Court against interlocutory matters and the record will be transferred to the Tribunal which will decide it as reference under S. 4 of the Act. Only appeals pending before the High Court will not abate and the same will be heard and disposed of by it. Only appeals pending before the High Court will not abate and the same will be heard and disposed of by it. If High court remands a case then the remanded case.will be referred to the Tribunal and not to the subordinate Court concerned. Section 5 of the Act' prescribed the powers and procedure of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure but in respect of certain matter regarding holding of inquiry on the reference so pending, it will have the same power as Civil Court. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall decide every reference expeditiously and ordinarily it will decide case on basis of perusal of documents and representation and oral and written arguments if any. This provision is in conformity with the purpose for which the Tribunal was brought into existence as taking away the original as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the civil Courts and vesting the same in the Tribunal abolishing the appellate jurisdiction. 11. Rules have been framed under the Act and though S. 5 provides that the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure (including fixing of place and time of its sitting and deciding whether to sit in public or in private) yet ten years have rolled in but the Public Services Tribunals have not yet laid down the procedure to be followed by the Tribunals. One Tribunal has passed an order in this behalf prescribing sliding scale regarding importion (sic) of Court which is also subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 12. The judicial function of the Court of law has thus been transferred to the Tribunals established under the Act. The Tribunal thus decides rights of an employee both fundamental and otherwise regarding service matters which are civil rights. The judgment and order passed by Tribunal are enforceable and machinery for the same (sic) in the Act and Rules framed thereunder. In Hari Nagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1961 SC 1669 it was observed that all Tribunals are not Courts, though all Courts are Tribunals. The word 'Courts' is used to designate those Tribunals which are set up in an organised State for the administration of justice. By administration of justice is meant the exercise of judicial power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and to punish 'wrongs'. The word 'Courts' is used to designate those Tribunals which are set up in an organised State for the administration of justice. By administration of justice is meant the exercise of judicial power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and to punish 'wrongs'. Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury, the Courts are there to restore the vinculum juris, which is disturbed. The word 'tribunal' is a word of wide import and the words 'Court' and 'Tribunal' embrace within them the exercise of judicial power in all its term Courts and Tribunals act judicially in both senses and in the term 'Court' are included the ordinary and permanent tribunals and in the word 'Tribunals' are included all others which are not so included. 13. The Tribunals if not Court have got many of trapping of the Court when Tribunal performs the function of a Court notwithstanding that it is tribunal, it is in more or less a Court and to decide and adjudicate the matter with a judicial bent of mind and in accordance with law both substantive and procedural. 14. Section 3 of the Public Services Tribunals Act provides for constitution of the Tribunal and it reads as under : "3(1) The State Government may by notification constitute two or more Tribunals. each to be called a State Public Service Tribunal. 2- Each Tribunal shall consist of a judicial member and an administrative member. 3-The judicial member shall be a person who is a serving judge of the High Court or is qualified to be appointed as such judge and an administrative member shall be a person who holds or has held the post of, or any post equivalent to, Commissioner of a division. 4-One of the members shall be designated by the State Government to he the chairman of the Tribunal. Provided that where a serving judge of the High Court is appointed as a judicial member he shall be appointed as chairman. 5-The provisions of R. 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, Published in the Financial Handbook Volume 11 (Part 11 to IV) shall continue to apply to every member of the Tribunal as they apply to any other Government servant of the same grade, rank or cadre. 5-The provisions of R. 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, Published in the Financial Handbook Volume 11 (Part 11 to IV) shall continue to apply to every member of the Tribunal as they apply to any other Government servant of the same grade, rank or cadre. Provided that a judicial member referred to in the proviso to sub-section (4) shall continue to hold office till he attains the age of sixty two years. 6-The State Government may transfer any case from one tribunal to another, and if in any case the two members of a tribunal are unable to agree, the State Government shall transfer that case to another tribunal. 7-The State Government may, by general or special order, from time to time, define the jurisdiction of each Tribunal either with reference to territories, or with reference to classes of cases but any such order shall be without prejudice to the power of the State Government under sub-section (6)." 15. The Tribunal thus not only includes a judicial member but also an administrative member holding the post of Commissioner or equivalent in rank. The judicial member may be a sitting judge of the High Court or a person who is qualified to he appointed as such judge which would include member of Bar as well as Higher Judicial Service. In case serving judge is judicial member then he will be the chairman of tribunal otherwise the administrative member will be the chairman. Admittedly no sitting High Court Judge has been appointed as judicial member of tribunals under Public Service Tribunals Act. 16. The position thus is that the cases transferred from or which are to be instituted in Courts of law are to be decided by two members; one with legal training background and experience whose decision are subject to review and criticism by superior courts and the other with executive training, background and experience, and little experience of any of quasi-judicial work could be only of small and specified nature not requiring any particular legal knowledge and experience. It cannot be denied that approach of both basically is no the same and it would take more time and discussion for arriving at a consensus failing which the matter as provided has to be referred to a member of another Tribunal. It cannot be denied that approach of both basically is no the same and it would take more time and discussion for arriving at a consensus failing which the matter as provided has to be referred to a member of another Tribunal. It is the chairman of the tribunal that is administrative member in the appointment of which the Government alone has say and it appoints them, has got upper hand also in the matter of regulation of timing, procedure, disposal of cases including its number and judicial member's position in certain matter is second to the administrative member though directly connected with the disposal of the cases in accordance with law. The question will be whether making administrative member as chairman makes the tribunal less effective and efficacious and the decision being short of full judicial approach being result of blending of two different approaches than the Courts of law which have been substituted by tribunal. In this connection reference may be made to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Parliament enacted the same for Central Government employees ex or in service and employees of Corporation under Central Act etc. and the Act has taken away not only jurisdiction of competent Civil Court but even of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution both in interlocutory matter as well as final decision. The jurisdiction of High Court too has thus been taken away and it is vested exclusively in the tribunal. Against the judgments of administrative tribunal Supreme Court can entertain petition or appeal The Act also provides for constitution of such tribunal which includes judicial as well as administrative members. There is only one chairman for the Central Tribunal and the regional Tribunals are to be headed by a vice chairman. The Act as enacted provided for appointment of administrative member a person of Secretary rank also as vice chairman. The provisions of the Act were challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which directed that only judicial member would be Vice Chairman otherwise the provision in this behalf would have to be struck down as invalid. The decision was given in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124 . The provisions of the Act were challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which directed that only judicial member would be Vice Chairman otherwise the provision in this behalf would have to be struck down as invalid. The decision was given in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124 . It was observed therein by Hon'ble Bhagwati, C.J. that it must, therefore, be read as implicit in this constitutional amendment that the law excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 permissible under it must not leave a void but it must set up another effective institutional mechanism or authority and vest the power of judicial review in it. Consequently, the impugned Act excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 in respect of service matters and vesting such jurisdiction in the administrative tribunal can pass the test of constitutionality as being within the ambit and coverage of Cl. (2)(d) of Article 323-A, only if it can be shown that the administrative tribunal set up under the impugned Act is equally efficacious as the High Court, so far as the power of judicial review over service matters is concerned. It was further observed by Hon'ble Bhagwati, C.J. in paragraph 7 that so far as the appointment of judicial members of the Administrative Tribunal is concerned, there is a provision introduced in the impugned Act by way of amendment that the judicial members shall be appointed by the Government concerned in consultation with the chief Chief Justice of India. Obviously no exception can be taken to this provision. because even so far as judges of the High Court are concerned, their appointment is required to be made by the President inter alia in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. but so far as the appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman and administrative members is concerned, the sole and exclusive power to make such appointment is conferred on the Government under the impugned Act. There is no obligation cast on the Government to consult the Chief Justice of India or to follow any particular selection procedure in this behalf. The result is that it is left to the absolute unfettered discretion of the Government i o appoint such person or persons as it likes as chairman Vice Chairman and administrative member of the Administrative Tribunal. The result is that it is left to the absolute unfettered discretion of the Government i o appoint such person or persons as it likes as chairman Vice Chairman and administrative member of the Administrative Tribunal. It was further observed by Hon'ble Bhagwati, C.J. that the administrative members would also be likely to carry a sense of obligation to the executive for having been appointed members of the administrative tribunal and that would have a tendency to impair the independence and objectivity of the members of the Tribunal. There can be no doubt that the power of appointment and promotion vested in the executive can have prejudicial effect on the independence of the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the administrative tribunal, if such power is absolute and unfettered. If the members have to look to the executive for advancement, it may, tend directly or indirectly, to influence their decision making process particularly since the Government would be a litigant in most of the cases coming before the administrative tribunal and it is the action of the Government which would be challenged in such cases. It was further observed by Hon'ble Bhagwati, C.J. that it can no longer be disputed that total insulation of the judiciary from all forms of interference from the Coordinate braces of Government is a basic essential feature of the Constitution. I am. therefore, of the view that the appointment of chairman, vice chairman and administrative members should be made by the concerned Government only after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and such consultation must be meaningful) and effective and ordinarily the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India must be accepted unless there are cogent reasons, in which event the reasons must be disclosed to the Chief Justice of India and his response must be invited to such reasons. There is also another alternative which may be adopted by the Government for making appointments of chairman, vice chairman and members and that may be by setting up a High Powered Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice of India or a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or concerned High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India. There is also another alternative which may be adopted by the Government for making appointments of chairman, vice chairman and members and that may be by setting up a High Powered Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice of India or a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or concerned High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India. Both these modes of appointment will ensure selection of proper and competent persons to man the administrative Tribunal and give it prestige and reputation which would inspire confidence in the public trend in regard to the competence, objectivity and impartiality of those manning the administrative tribunal. If either of these two modes of appointment is adopted, it would save the impugned Act from invalidation. Otherwise, it will be outside the scope of the power conferred on Parliament under Article 323-A. I would, however, hasten to add that this judgment will operate only prospectively and will not invalidate appointments already made to the administrative tribunal. But if any appointments Vice Chairman others administrative members are to he made hereafter, the same shall he made by the Government in accordance with either of the aforesaid two modes of appointment. It was observed by Hon'ble Ranganath Misra, J. that sub section (3-A) provides the qualification for appointment as administrative member and lays down that such person (a) should have, for at least two years, held the post of an additional secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay not less than that of an additional Secretary to Government of India; or (h) has for at least three years, held the post of a joint secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or the State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a joint secretary to Government of India. So far as the Chairman is concerned, we are of the view that ordinarily a retiring or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or when such a person is not available, a Senior Judge of proved ability either in office or retired should be appointed. That office should for all practical purposes be equated with the office of Chief Justice of a High Court. That office should for all practical purposes be equated with the office of Chief Justice of a High Court. We must immediately point out that we have no bias, in any manner, against members of the service. Some of them do exhibit great endeavour, wisdom, capacity to deal with intricate problems with understanding, detachment and objectiveness but judicial discipline generated by experience and training is an adequate does (sic) hence in our opinion, a necessary qualifications for the post of chairman is necessary. We agree that a vice-chairman with these qualifications and experience of two years may be considered for appointment as chairman but in order that the.Tribunal may be acceptable to the litigants who are themselves members of the various services, hence S. 0(1)(c) should be omitted. We do not want to say anything about vice chairman and members dealt with in sub-secs. (2), (3) or (3-A) because so far as their selection is concerned, we are of the view that such selection is concerned, we are of the view that such selection when it is not of a sitting judge or retired judge of a High Court should be done by a high-powered committee with a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India as its chairman. This will ensure selection of proper and competent people to man these high offices of trust and help to build up reputation and acceptability. Once the qualifications indicated for appointment of chairman are adopted and the manner of selection of vice chairman and members followed, we would be inclined to think that the manning of the tribunal would be proper and conducive to appropriates functioning. We do not propose to strike down the prescriptions containing different requirements but would recommend to the Central Government to take prompt steps to bring the provisions in accord with what we have indicated. We must state that unless the same be done, the constitution of the tribunal as a substitute of the High Court would be open to challenge. We hasten to add that our judgment shall operate prospectively and would not affect appointments already made to the offices of vice chairman and member - both administrative and judicial. 17. We must state that unless the same be done, the constitution of the tribunal as a substitute of the High Court would be open to challenge. We hasten to add that our judgment shall operate prospectively and would not affect appointments already made to the offices of vice chairman and member - both administrative and judicial. 17. In Union of India v. Permanand, (1989) 2 SCC 177 considering certain sections and relying on Sampath Kumar 's case, (1989 Lab IC 222) (SC) (supra) it was observed that Tribunal had jurisdiction to exercise all the powers which a Civil Court in a suit or High Court in writ proceedings could have respectively examined. In the original proceedings instituted before the tribunal under Section 19, the tribunal can exercise any of the powers of the Civil Court or the High Court could have exercised by way of judicial review. It is neither less nor more because the Tribunal is just a substitute to the Civil Court and the High Court. 18. What has been laid down and observed in Sampath Kuniar's case (supra) extracted above applies with full force. The Constitution of public services tribunal under the U.P. Act has a specific aim, object, purpose and is also substantially the sane except that the jurisdiction of State Tribunals are confined to employees of State Government, its Corporations and Local Bodies etc. 19. The judicial member of the tribunal is undoubtedly one whose name is sent by the High Court being a senior District Judge in super time scale. In the matter of appointment of Administrative member, the High Court or the Chief Justice is not consulted. The appointment is made by the State Government exclusively. Obviously there will be a sense of obligation in them if they have come willingly to the executive. If they have been sent by executive to their disliking, they will look mere towards executive for early transfer and thereby may like to please the executive, that is the Government. This would impair the independence and objectivity of the Tribunal. 20. Obviously there will be a sense of obligation in them if they have come willingly to the executive. If they have been sent by executive to their disliking, they will look mere towards executive for early transfer and thereby may like to please the executive, that is the Government. This would impair the independence and objectivity of the Tribunal. 20. The moving to the question whether a tribunal presided over by a member of executive nominated by the State Government aided by a judicial member can be looked and considered by the persons concerned to be a Court evoking the same feeling of trust and confidence like a Court of law for getting justice against Government or bodies or authority controlled by it can hardly be 'yes'. However, we may add, we have no doubt in the capability. The service conditions of employees and its enforcement, non-enforcement, violation etc. also involve interpretation and application of the constitution, various laws and rules framed thereunder which can be understood and enforced better in accordance with law more by one who has legal training and judicial background. A substitute is to appear, work like and inculcate the feeling of faith and confidence like that one of which it is a. substitute. The reasons given and observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar 's case (supra) apply in case of services tribunal under the State law, the decision of which can be challenged in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution that is, in its supervisory jurisdiction distinguished from appellate jurisdiction. The chairman of the tribunal who in fact could and should only be a person with legal knowledge, background and experience. As a matter of fact, law is to be suitably amended and a sitting or retired High Court Judge having vast experience be appointed over all chairman of the Tribunals. A sitting High Court Judge may not very much like to be the chairman as his decisions may be subject to scrutiny by another sitting Judge in proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. If judgments and orders passed by the tribunals are placed and a review of High Court Jurisdiction there may not arise any difficulty. In any case it should be only a District Judge or a person who could be appointed as High Court Judge. If judgments and orders passed by the tribunals are placed and a review of High Court Jurisdiction there may not arise any difficulty. In any case it should be only a District Judge or a person who could be appointed as High Court Judge. In case there is an overall chairman who is a sitting or retired High Court Judge, the tribunal is to be presided over by a vice chairman who may be District Judge, that is member of Higher Judicial Service or one who can be' appointed as High Court Judge. There can be a single member tribunal or two member tribunal including one administrative member. 21. The Administrative member may be retired or serving member of a particular cadre but his appointment is to he made in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State whose recommendation should be accepted by the State Government unless there are strong reasons for not doing so and the Chief Justice is to be apprised of those reasons. If the amendments as suggested above are not carried out expeditiously, the provisions of section 3 and other connected provisions of U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 have got to be struck down as invalid. 22. Accordingly, writ petitions No. 8569 of 1988, 8713 of 1988, 1814 of 1988 and 1920 of 1989 are allowed and the Public Services Tribunal/Tribunal is directed to dispose of their claim petitions expeditiously. Writ petition No. 9109 of 1988 is also allowed. The Public Services Tribunal is directed to frame rules for its proper functioning so as to fulfil the object of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The order dated 23-9-1988 contained in annexure 1 passed by administrative member of the Public Services Tribunal is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to frame proper rules in the matter of timing and sitting etc. The State Government is directed to amend the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 in the line indicated above and on the pattern of administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 keeping in view the directions given by Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar s case, (1987 Lab IC 222) (supra) latest by 30th September, 1989 so that it may not be struck down as invalid. The Member of Tribunal and their seat may also be provided in amendment. There will be no order as to costs.