Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
Petitioner has challenged the office memorandum dated 23.12.2010 on the ground that earlier the panel prescribed for selection of Presenting Officers before the State Public Services Tribunal consisted of: (1) Principal Secretary/Law Legal Remembrancer, (2) Secretary Personnel and (3) President, U.P. Public Services Tribunal, which has now been revised and amended by the impugned office memorandum to comprise the following: (1) Principal Secretary (Law), (2) Principal Secretary (Personnel) and (3) Principal Secretary (Legislative). Thus, the President, U.P. Public Services Tribunal, who is the controlling authority of working of the Tribunal apart from constitution of Benches etc., has been deliberately excluded from the panel without any justification for the reasons not given by the State. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to Section 5(8)(a) of the State Public Services Tribunal Act (for short, 'the Act') which provides as:
"The employer may appoint a Public Servant or a legal practitioner to be known as Presenting Officer to present its case before the Tribunal."
On the other hand, learned State Counsel while repelling the submission of learned counsel for petitioner contended that the provision referred to herein above does not mention that the President of Tribunal shall be one of the members of the Committee constituted for the purpose of appointment of Presenting Officers. Learned counsel also submitted that since there is no substantive provision in the Act or the Rules and the panel has been constituted only under an Executive instruction issued by the Government, the Government is competent enough to amend that instruction, if it is so required. Learned counsel also referred to various judgments cited in the counter affidavit which are: (1)(2006) 8 SCC 42 [Sanjay Kumar Manjaul Vs. Chairman, UPSC and others], (2) AIR 1965 SC 1566 [Bishun Narayan Mishra vs. State of U.P. & others], (3) AIR 1967 SC 1889 [Roshan Lal Tondon vs. Union of India & others], (4) AIR 1969 SC 118 [B.S. Vedera vs. Union of India], (5)(1974) 1 SCC 19 [State of J & K vs. Triloki Nath Khosa], (6) 1980 Supp. SCC 524 [B.S. Yadav vs, State of Haryana], (7) (1999) 3 SCC 524 [ State of J & K vs. Shiv Ram Sharma], (8) (1985) 1 SCC 523 [K. Nagraraj vs. State of A.P.] and (10)(2011) 5 SCC 305 [State of U.P. & others vs. Hirendra Pal Singh and others).
On due consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in the writ petition for the reason that the exercise of constitution and re-constitution of panel by way of impugned office memorandum has not been undertaken by under any substantive provision of the Act or Rules framed thereunder or any other Act or Rules applicable in the case. If the panel has been constituted under an executive instruction issued by way of office memorandum, State Government, being the competent authority, can amend the same, if it is so required. Moreover, as Section 5 (8) (a) of the Act stipulates that only the employer can appoint a Presenting Officer to his satisfaction and there is no reference to the role of President of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in issuing the impugned office memorandum. As long as the parties to a lis are present in person or represented through counsel or Presenting Officer, as the case may be, before the Court or Tribunal, it is none of the concern of the Tribunal to interfere with the appointment and service conditions of the Presenting Officers. The only thing that may concern the Tribunal is to ensure that the ends of justice are not made to suffer during the course of judicial proceedings.
Writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.11.2011 A. Katiyar