Bombay High Court Examines Jurisdiction of Single Member of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Challenge to Appointment Cancellation. Petitioner Contended That Only Division Bench Could Hear Original Application Under Section 5(6) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Chairman's Circular of 28 May 2021.

Writ Petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which allowed Original Application No.990 of 2022, quashed the cancellation of Respondent No.1's appointment, and appointed her as Additional Commissioner of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation; the challenge was limited to the issue of jurisdiction of the Single Member of the Tribunal.

The petitioner sought to set aside the Single Member's order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and contended that the original application should have been heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal. An interim application was also filed by Maharashtra State Chief Officer's Association seeking impleadment.

The petitioner contended that the Single Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide an original application involving appointment and cancellation of appointment, which under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Chairman's Circular dated 28 May 2021 fell within the purview of the Division Bench.

The Single Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 15 February 2023 rejected the petitioner's preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and held that he had jurisdiction. On 17 February 2023, the Single Member allowed Original Application No.990 of 2022, quashed the cancellation of Respondent No.1's appointment, and appointed her to the post of Additional Commissioner.

Whether a Single Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide Original Application No.990 of 2022 or whether it must be heard only by a Division Bench. Whether the subject matter of the original application is appointment and cancellation of appointment (Division Bench) or posting (Single Member) under the Chairman's Circular dated 28 May 2021. Whether the cadre of Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is composite and the dispute pertains to posting, or whether Section 39A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act makes it an appointment matter.

Petitioner argued that under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, jurisdiction of the Tribunal must be exercised by a Division Bench consisting of a judicial member and an administrative member, and a Single Member derives jurisdiction only from a general or special order of the Chairman. Petitioner contended that the Chairman's Circular dated 28 May 2021 assigns Appointment (item-1) and Cancellation of Appointment (item-21) to Division Bench, while Posting (item-3) falls under Single Member; the dispute pertains to appointment and cancellation, not posting. Petitioner submitted that the Single Member erred in holding that the cadre of Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is composite and interchangeable, and that the dispute is one of posting; Section 39A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act specifically authorises the State Government to appoint a suitable person, making it an appointment matter. No separate detailed submissions of the respondents are extracted in the available text of the judgment.

Not mentioned (the available text of the judgment does not contain the final ratio decidendi).

Rule. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel waives service for the Respondent No.1. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that ... dispute between the parties involved in the proceedings pertains to only 'the appointment' made or to be made on the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner and cancellation thereof, which in terms of the list falls within the purview of the Division Bench. He submitted that the Learned Single Member has erroneously held that the Cadre of Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is composite, these posts are interchangeable and it is the case of 'posting' in same cadre. Section 39A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act which authorizes the State Government to appoint any suitable person on the post in issue to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions of the Commissioner.

Respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Commissioner, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation on 5 January 2018 and was in the cadre of Chief Officer, Group A; she was given selection grade and posted as Additional Commissioner by order dated 1 February 2021. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Commissioner, Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation on deputation on 11 August 2020 and by order dated 22 September 2022 was appointed as Additional Commissioner, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation on deputation for two years. Respondent No.1's appointment as Additional Commissioner was made by order of the Chief Minister dated 22 August 2022 and formal order dated 13 September 2022 under Section 39A, but her appointment was cancelled by order dated 22 September 2022 and the petitioner was appointed. Respondent No.1 filed Original Application No.990 of 2022 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection on 30 November 2022 that the Single Member lacked jurisdiction; Respondent No.1 filed an additional affidavit on 19 December 2022. The Single Member rejected the objection on 15 February 2023 and allowed the original application on 17 February 2023, quashing the cancellation and appointing Respondent No.1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition; the parties agreed to argue only the limited issue of jurisdiction. The High Court reserved judgment on 12 April 2023 and pronounced it on 3 May 2023.

• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 5, Section 5(6)
• Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act: Section 39A