Megh Nath Ram v. Union Of India — 1995 DIGILAW 348 (PAT)

Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. -the petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction on the respondents to send the integrity certificate of the petitioner to the Union public Service Commission for consideration of his case for appointment by promotion in the cadre of Indian Police Service. 2. When the case was taken up, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Union of India raised preliminary objection relating to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the matter relaring to appointment/promotion in the Indian Police Services is now vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal and that this Court has got no jurisdiction to pass any order. 3. Mr. Ganesh Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he is pressing only the prayer for direction on the respondent-State of Bihar for sending the integrity Certificate of petitioner to the Union "public Service Commission. It was submitted that the rest of the prayer made in the writ petition is not being pressed by him. He has further drawn my attention towards two of the judgments/orders of this court; one passed in the case of Ganesh Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and others by a Division Bench of this Court on 18th of August, 1989 in [c. W J. C. No.1571 of 1988] and another in the case of Bhagwan Prasad Sinka V/s. The State of Bihar and otters, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th of december, 1990 in [c. W. J. C. No.5177/89]. It was sumbitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid two cases, while the matter relating to adverse remarks was in disputed, direction has been given to the Selection committee for consideration of cases of those petitioners for appointment/ promotion to the post in Indian Police Service. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the writ is maintainable. 4. In the case of K. Narayanan and cithers V/s. State of Karnataka and others as reported in [1994 Supp. (1) SCC page44] the Supreme Court while dealing the definition relating to recruitment held as follows:- ". . .6. Article 309 of the Constitution empowers the appropriate legislature to frame rules to regulate recruitment to public services and the post recruitment according to the dictionary means enlist. (1) SCC page44] the Supreme Court while dealing the definition relating to recruitment held as follows:- ". . .6. Article 309 of the Constitution empowers the appropriate legislature to frame rules to regulate recruitment to public services and the post recruitment according to the dictionary means enlist. It is a comprehensive term and includes any method provided for inducting a person in public service. Appointment, selection, promotion, deputation are all well-known methods of recruitment. Even appointment by transfer is not unknown" It will be evident from the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, section 14 therein, that the matter relating to appoitment to the post in indian Civil Services, which includes Indian Police Service, the power has been vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sec.28 of the central Administrative Tribunal Act reads as follows : ". . . . . . S.28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme court under Article 136 of the Constitution :- On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matter concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning member of any service of persons appointed to any service or post, no Court except- (a) the Supreme Court; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any other corresponding law for the time being in force shall htve, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. . . . . . " In the case of Union of India and others V/s. Baleshwar Singh, reported in [1994 Supp. (2) SCC, page 587] the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows :- ". . . . . .4. . . . . . " In the case of Union of India and others V/s. Baleshwar Singh, reported in [1994 Supp. (2) SCC, page 587] the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows :- ". . . . . .4. Sec.28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in terms states that on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post, no court except- (a) the Supreme Court: or (b) any industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have, or. . . . . . be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. 5. In view of this legal position, there can be no doubt that the High court does not have jurisdiction in matters of the type referred to in the section. The learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to point out how the High Court could exercise jurisdiction in regard to a service matter. We, therefore, think that the preliminary contention raised by the learned counsel for the Union of India must be accepted We accept the same and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition, but in the facts and circumstances of the case we permit the respondent to approach the Tribunal, if so advised, with afresh petition within 15 days from today whereupon the tribunal, will consider the matter on merits without raising the issue of limitation and without being influenced by the observations of the High Court in the impugned matter on merits. The appeal will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. . . . . . " 5. From the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the provisions of law stated above, it will be manifest and clear that the matter relating to recruitment in Indian Civil Services, including that in the Indian Police services, is now vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal and not with this Court. 6. . . . . . " 5. From the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the provisions of law stated above, it will be manifest and clear that the matter relating to recruitment in Indian Civil Services, including that in the Indian Police services, is now vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal and not with this Court. 6. So far as the argument, as has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that he is only praying for a direction on the respondent-State of Bihar to send his integrity certificate to the Union Public Service commission of India, such submission cannot be accepted. Any relief sought for by a party in a writ petition is to be read along with the cause of action. This Court, without any cause of action on the part of the petitioner, cannot direct the respondent-State to send the integrity certificate of the petitioner to the Union Public Service Commission. Such direction can be given only after going through the cause of aetion of the party concerned. In the present case the cause of action of the petitioner is consideration of the case of petitioner for appointment/promotion to the posts in Indian police Service. Therefore, it is manifest and clear that the petit. oner has moved this Court for a direction to send the integrity certificate of the petitioner, for the purpose of consideration of his case for appointment/ promotion to a post in the Indian Police Service, /. e. a matter relating to recruitment. 7. So far as the cases referred by the petitioner in the case of Ganesh prasad Yadav V/s. The State of Bihar and others, passed in [c. W. J. C. No.1571/88] and the case of Bhagwan Prasad Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and others, passed in [c. W. J. C. No.5177/89] are concerned, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the same. In none of the aforesaid two cases any party objected relating to the jurisdiction of this Court under writ jurisdiction to give any direction in the matter of recruitment in Indian Civil Services/ indian Police Services. In none of the aforesaid two cases any party objected relating to the jurisdiction of this Court under writ jurisdiction to give any direction in the matter of recruitment in Indian Civil Services/ indian Police Services. It is for the said reason, no decision has been given by this Court in the aforesaid two petitions, discussing the jurisdiction of this Court For the said reason I hold that the decision given in the aforesaid two cases are rts-intra and judgment in pericurium, which cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. 8. In a given case, a person may move before this taking grievance against the character roll and/or the integrity certificate, but such grievance is to be tested taking into account the cause of action of such person. If a person challenges his adverse character roll and/or integrity certificate before this court, which has got nothing to do with the matter of recruitment in the indian Civil Services, in such case, this Court may have jurisdiction to pass any order under the writ jurisdiction. But the moment such prayer linking with the character roll and/or integrity certificate is to be made, which has direct nexus with recruitment in the Indian Civil Services, in that case this court will cease to have such jurisdiction in terms with Sec.28 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 9. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and thereby I dismiss the same. However, it is made clear that have not gone on the merit of the writ application. The petitioner is so advised, he may move before the appropriate forum/ central Administrative Tribunal. Petition dismissed.