A Division Bench of the Gujarat HC has recently denied to compel the expeditious appointment of Manorama Kumari as the Judicial Member pursuant to the willingness shown in being reappointed at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The petitioner was appointed as a judicial member of the National Company Law Tribunal on 01.06.2016 in terms of Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner had held office for 5 years as contemplated. The petitioner expressed her willingness to continue as Judicial Member, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for another term of 5 years. The petitioner had already served for a term of five years and retired.
Percy Kavina, on behalf of the petitioner urged, to complete the process of reappointment of the petitioner, harped on the condition that the Member is eligible to be reappointed after consumption of 5 years subject to maximum age limit of 65 years.
As provided in para 7 of the Circular dated 12.07.2022 regarding filling up of 8 posts of Judicial Members and 11 Posts of Technical Members in the National Company Law Tribunal “Every Member shall hold office for a period of five years from the date on which he/she enters upon his/her office, but shall be eligible for re-appoinment for another term of 5 years. The term of appointment is, however, subject to the maximum age limit of sixtyfive years.”
It was observed by the bench of Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt that, “The petitioner herein wants to get completed the process of her reappointment within time period. Reappointment is not a vested right for the petitioner. It may be true that the petitioner has shown her willingness for reappointment and her case may be liable to be considered in accordance with law and that reappointment is contemplated in Clause 7 of the circular referred to above.”
Upon being queried, the advocate for the petitioner stated that five persons have been seeking appointment as Members of the Tribunal. The High Court held that “any direction or observation in respect of the petitioner in particular to complete the process cannot be granted.”
An additional plea regarding formation of policy that the appointment shall be rational and with transparency was considered and it was held that, “in this regard that the authorities cannot be presumed to be not alive to sub-serve the interests of NCLT and act in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court as above.” No further directions were issued in this regard.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
