Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over NCLT Members as they do not hold civil posts.

The applicant, appointed as a Technical Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 01.10.2021... challenged a notification dated 16.03.2026 which appointed Respondent No. 2 (a Judicial Member who joined on 18.10.2021) as the Acting President of the NCLT.

The applicant contended that as the senior-most member based on the date of assumption of charge, he was entitled to the position under Section 415(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

After initially approaching the Delhi High Court, the applicant was directed to seek alternative remedies, leading to the present filing before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the CAT's jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning NCLT members.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate disputes regarding the service conditions or appointments of Members of the National Company Law Tribunal.

Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which restricts the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to recruitment and service matters concerning All-India Services, civil services of the Union, or "civil posts" under the Union.

Criteria for a "civil post" established in State of Assam and Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, which requires a master-servant relationship and State control over the manner of work.

Principles from Union of India Anr v. Shanker Raju, which established that presiding officers of quasi-judicial statutory tribunals do not hold civil posts.

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, which affirms the independent statutory nature of Tribunals as distinct from government departments.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an application to be maintainable under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the post in question must qualify as a "civil post" or the institution must be specifically notified by the Central Government.

The CAT observed that the NCLT is a statutory body created under Section 408 of the Companies Act and is not a department or wing of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Because the NCLT discharges judicial and quasi-judicial functions independently, its members do not share a traditional master-servant relationship with the Union Government.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant's reliance on A.K. Doshi (Dr.) v. CAT, noting that the legal status of NCLT members evolved significantly after the 2016 and 2021 amendments to the Companies Act, and that the NCLT has not been notified as an authority under the jurisdiction of the CAT.

Consequently, the OA was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, though the applicant was granted liberty to agitate his grievances before the appropriate legal forum.

No order was made as to costs.