The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while adjudicating a petition filed in Manorama Kumari v Union of India, has rejected the plea of a former NCLT Member for re-appointment as a Judicial Member of NCLT, after having served a term of 5 years and being retired. The Bench held that re-appointment is not a vested right for...
The Gujarat High Court Bench comprising of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while adjudicating a petition filed in Manorama Kumari v Union of India, has rejected the plea of a former NCLT Member for re-appointment as a Judicial Member of NCLT, after having served a term of 5 years and being retired. The Bench held that re-appointment is not a vested right for the Petitioner.
Background Facts
Ms. Manorama Kumari ("Petitioner") was appointed as Judicial Member of the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") on 01.06.2016 in accordance with Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Petitioner held office for 5 years and had thereafter sent her willingness on 02.02.2021 to continue as Member (Judicial) of NCLT for another term of 5 years. The Petitioner has already served for a term of five years and stands retired.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Union of India ("Respondent") had issued Circular dated 12.07.2022 regarding filling up of 8 posts of Judicial Member and 11 Posts of Technical Members in the NCLT by inviting online applications.
The Circular stated that "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."
The Petitioner filed a petition before the High Court seeking (i) To direct the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to complete the process of reappointment of the Petitioner within time period; and (ii) To direct the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to frame rational and transparent policy giving emphasis to the legislative mandate in Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013 in order to maintain independence of the judicial officers.
Contention Of Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that she is eligible to be reappointed after consumption of term of 5 years subject to maximum age limit of 65 years.
Decision Of Court
The Bench observed that appointments of Judicial Members and Technical Members in the NCLT have already been made. "The petitioner herein wants to get completed the process of her reappointment within time period. Reappointment is not a vested right for the petitioner."
The Bench observed that 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.
"Merely because the Petitioner has shown her willingness to be considered, merely because she is liable to be considered and merely because she has opted for reappointment, could not be ground to seek writ from the Court that her appointment process may be completed."
The Petitioner's case could be at the best considered along with other aspiring candidates in accordance with law and on its own merits. Any direction or observation in respect of the petitioner in particular to complete the process cannot be granted. The Bench declined to accept the prayers and the petition was accordingly disposed off.
Case Title: Manorama Kumari v Union of India
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 23268 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 404
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Percy Kavina, Sr. Advocate With Mr.Vishal J Dave
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Nipun Singhvi