was appointed as the Chairman of the Tribunal.
Justice Sharma retired as Chairman of the Tribunal on 10th July, 1999.
Shri Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui, a practising advocate filed writ petition No.
Sub sections 3 1 , 2 3 and 6 were amended.
5103 MB of 1999 challenging the companystitutional validity of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 on the ground that the same was beyond the legislative companypetence of the State Legislature.
The companystitutional validity of newly added Section 4 1 , sub section 5 C and Section 5 5 B was challenged being ultra vires the Constitution.
Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment was dismissed by this Court.
871 MB of 2000 was the same as had been claimed in writ petition Nos.
Sanjai Kumar Srivastava filed writ petition No.1619 MB of 1993 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the appointment of Sri Venkat Ramani as Chairman of the Tribunal as well as challenging the companystitutional validity of the provisions of section 5 3 c and 5 4 c of the Act as amended in 1992 whereby an IAS officer companyld be appointed as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Tribunal.
7 of 1992.
A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its judgment dated 26th May, 1995 struck down the provisions of Section 5 3 c and 5 4 c of the Act and quashed the appointment of Sri Venkat Ramani an IAS officer as Chairman of the Tribunal.
It was companytended that administrative member companyld number become a Chairman and the appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman and members companyld number be made without companysulting the Chief Justice of the State.
By Ordinance No.
This Act was challenged by filing a writ petition in Sanjai Kumar Srivastava in the High Court.
5 of 2000 was moved which was allowed.
The Tribunal was companystituted of one Chairman, a Vice Chairman at least five Judicial Members and Five Administrative Members which were to function at different Benches companysisting of a Single Member or two members for the disposal of such references of claims and other matters as may be specified by the Chairman.
The same advocate Shri Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui filed another writ petition No.
17 of 1999 Section 4 1 was substituted in place of section 4 of the Act, further Section 5 C was added to Section 5.
Thereafter in 1993 Sri S.Venkat Ramani, an IAS officer was appointed by the State Government as Chairman of the Tribunal.
4285 MB of 1999, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs.
State of U.P. Anr.,
This objection was upheld and accordingly Section 3 3 c and Section 3 4 c of the Act were struck down.
It was also directed that in future all appointments to the Tribunal be made only after effective companysultation with the Chief Justice of the State.
17 of 1999 was promulgated by the Governor of U.P. and published vide numberification dated 9th September, 1999.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
The purpose for creating the Tribunal has been indicated in the statement of objects of the Act, which reads as under The number of cases in the companyrts pertaining to the employment matters of the Government servants was companystantly on the increase.
748 MB of 1999 and 1636 MB of 1999 filed by him in which he had challenged the provisions of the Ordinance.
4285 MB of 1999 was filed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association.
A further prayer was made that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued companymanding the State Government to modify the Act strictly in companyformity with the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as per the law laid down by this Court in P.Sampath Kumars case supra and L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 3 SCC 261.
Consequently, the Original Act was amended by U.P. Act No.
3947 of 2001 and 3948 of 2001 BHAN, J. These appeals are directed against a companymon order passed by a Full Bench of Five Judges of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No.
Civil Writ Petition No.
748 MB of 1999 challenging the companystitutional validity of Section 3 5 , 7 and 8 of the Act with a prayer to annul the above sections in order to remove the infirmities of the Act as pointed out by this Court in P.Sampath Kumars case supra .
Writ Petition No.
871 MB of 2000, Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui Vs.
State was permitted to make suitable amendments to bring about suitable amendments in the Act.
Sri Satish Chand Shukla, a practising advocate of Allahabad High Court filed writ petition No.
