Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2020 2(1) experience’ and ‘having held judicial office’. Consequently, bureaucrats with some judicial experience, lawyers with enrolment experience and retired judicial officers have all been found eligible to be appointed as members of the FTs within the meaning of the phrase ‘judicial experience’ under [2](2) of the FTO. By its judgment in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, the Supreme Court had directed the Guahati High Court to ‘finalise the process of selection of the Chairperson and Members of the FT, if required in phases, depending on the availability of officers opting to serve in the Tribunals’. 80 By using the phrase ‘officers opting to serve’, even the Supreme Court seems to be of the view that ‘judicial experience’ means ‘holding judicial office’ or in the least, ‘having held a judicial office’. However, in 2019 an advertisement issued by the Gauhati High Court situated at Guwahati, the state capital of Assam, called for applications for appointment as Members of the FT of Assam by prescribing the following eligibility condition: 1. Qualification of the candidate: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Should be citizen of India. Retired Judicial Officers of Assam Judicial Service, or, Retired Civil Servants (not below the rank of Secretary and Addl. Secretary) having Judicial experience, or, Advocates not below the age of 35 years with at least 7 years of practice. The candidates will have to have fair knowledge of official language of Assam and its (Assam) historical background giving rise to foreigner’s issues. 81 The eligibility seems to provide for a ‘free for all’, in that it allows almost anyone ‘connected’ to the judicial system to be eligible for appointment as a member of the FT in Assam. The entry of civil servants and advocates as members of FTs is particularly problematic because their experience with the law and judicial system cannot exactly be termed as ‘judicial experience’. In Badridass Kanhaiyalal v Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority Rajasthan, 82 the Rajasthan High Court held that when the legislature lays down the qualification of the Chairman of the State Transport Authority with reference to judicial experience it should be assumed that the intention of the legislature is that a person must possess judicial experience in a substantial measure. Nominal judicial experience for a short period would not qualify a person to be appointed as Chairman of the State Transport Authority. 83 This test applies squarely to bureaucrats who may have minimal experience of presiding over a quasi-judicial forum. The Rajasthan High Court had further held that ‘“judicial experience” would mean the knowledge or skill gained by a person by actually working as a judge in a court of law’ and a lawyer cannot be said to have judicial experience. 84 In order to recruit more lawyers to preside over as members of the FT, compared to previous recruitments, the advertisement issued by the Gauhati High 80 81 82 83 84 Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha (n 37) [46](2). ‘Advertisement’ (Official Advertisement No HC XXXVII-22/2019/442/R.Cell, 10 June 2019) 1 [1] <http://ghconline.gov.in/Recruitment/Notification-10-06-2019.pdf> (‘Judicial Advertisement’) . [1959] AIR 1960 Raj 105 (Rajasthan High Court). ibid [58]. ibid [62]. 127