The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to be amended by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 2006. By the said amendment, the post of Vice-Chairman in the Administrative Tribunal is abolished. A new provision i.e. Section 6(2) is introduced, which modifies the qualifications for appointment as Administrative Member in the Tribunal. Section 10A is inserted in the main Act, which provides that the conditions of services of the Judges of the High Court would be applicable only to the Members appointed after February 19, 2007. The newly inserted Section 10A restricts the total term of the Members of the Administrative Tribunals to ten years though by the said amendment the age of superannuation for a Members is raised from 62 to 65 years. Further, Section 10A postulates consideration of a case of a Member for re-appointment by Selection Committee after February 19, 2007. Section 12(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is amended and power is conferred on the appropriate Government to designate a Vice-Chairman for the purpose of performing certain duties and functions of the Chairman.The case of the petitioner is that the post of Vice-Chairman was in existence in the Administrative Tribunals since its inception, which enabled the Judges of various High Courts to opt for the Central Administrative Tribunal and provided an opportunity, in the nature of promotion to the Members of the Administrative Tribunals to the post of Vice-Chairman. According to the petitioner, the abolition of the said post now would create anomalous situation in the structure as well as administration of the Tribunals, if any High Court Judge is to be appointed only as a Member and, therefore, the abolition of the post of the Vice-Chairman is unconstitutional. On an careful reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the election petition contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition, it is clear that election petition contains an adequate statement of all material facts on which the allegations of not only illegality in counting of votes were founded but specific allegations of manipulation and fraud played by Returning Officer while counting of votes were levelled with material particulars. Not only this but the petitioner had also adduced voluminous evidence to support the allegations levelled in the election petition in respect of aforesaid illegalities and manipulations in counting of votes by entering himself in witness box and by examining his counting agent. The aforesaid version of election petition was also supported by other candidates by filing their affidavits before the Election Tribunal, which clearly established that the petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence affording a good ground for believing that manipulation was done and fraud was played while counting of votes by Returning Officer, therefore, in my opinion, the only way to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties was order for recounting of votes.From the perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal, it appears that the statement of petitioner and his agent in respect of manipulation in counting of votes has been rejected without any cogent reason.It appears that while dealing with issue, the election tribunal under wrong notion of law has illegally assumed that the petitioner was required to prove his allegations made in the election petition beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in view of legal position enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court from time to time as indicated herein before, such standard of proof for inspection of ballot papers for the purpose of recounting of votes is not at all necessary. Submit