Judgment :- P. Shanmugam, J. Defendants in O.S. No. 482/92 before the First Additional Sub Judge, Trivandrum are the revision petitioners. 2. The defendants have challenged the maintainability of the suit. The question whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit was considered as a preliminary issue and it was found in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the said finding and contending that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the above revision is filed. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent is a casual laborer said to have been engaged on daily wage basis by the Telecom Department. The Original suit was filed by him praying inter alia for a decree declaring that the finding of the Committee consisting of defendants 1 to 3 that manipulations were made by the plaintiff and an experience certificate produced by him is forged, is without basis, and bonafides and hence void; a decree directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards damages for having deprived him of opportunity for engagement as casual labourer under the Telecom Department and employment on regular basis on the strength of the certificates produced by him. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 to 3 had after interviewing him on 16.5.1991 and 10.6.1991 entered into a finding that he had manipulated some certificates and so the claim of the petitioner was not entertained. The decision of the committee was communicated to the plaintiff by the Assistant Engineer. Alleging that the stand of the defendant's caused mental agony and suffering and deprived him of further opportunity of engagement as casual labourer under the Telecom Department and employment on regular basis, the above suit was filed. The department filed a detailed written statement and raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit. In their written statement, it is contended that the report submitted and the orders passed by them were within their official capacity. According to them, the respondent earlier filed O.A. 270/91 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench alleging that he was denied employment illegally. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the 1 st defendant to dispose of the representation after taking into account the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff within a particular time. According to them, the respondent earlier filed O.A. 270/91 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench alleging that he was denied employment illegally. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the 1 st defendant to dispose of the representation after taking into account the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff within a particular time. Thereafter, a committee was constituted consisting of defendants 1 to 3 and after personal hearing and enquiry, the impugned order was passed. According to them, the declaration prayed for the plaintiff is one exclusively triable by the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. They denied of the publication of the finding and the communication to the plaintiff was necessitated because of the directions contained in O.A. 270/91. They have also held that instead of convincing the authorities regarding the genuineness of the document, plaintiff had dragged the departmental authorities into litigation with malafide intention. In the pleadings, even though 7 issues were framed, the 3rd issues, viz., whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit was taken up for consideration? The learned Sub Judge held that considering the case of the plaintiff S.25 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act excluding the jurisdiction would apply to matters concerning recruitments and it will not prevent the suit of the nature raised by the plaintiff and therefore, found that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The said order is now under challenge. 5. For proper appreciation of the case, it may be stated that the respondent along with 9 other persons filed O.A. 270/90 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench alleging that they were denied of employment illegally and that they were to be given casual labour cards. The O.A. was disposed of on 25.2.1991 with the following directions: "The applicants should, if so advised, submit a representation to respondent-1 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of communication of this order praying for the issue of casual labour card for re-engagement as casual mazdoor and for regularisation, along with all documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of being in casual employment prior to 7.5.1985. The respondent-! The respondent-! is directed to dispose of all the representations and grant necessary relief, in accordance with law, after taking into account the documentary evidence produced by the applicants and also in possession of the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representations. There is no order as to costs. It In pursuance of the direction, a committee consisting of defendants 1 to 3 was constituted. The committee submitted the following report: "Sri. D. Robert Sam has submitted his application on 7.3.1997 to TDM along with photo stat copy of certificates issued by JTO (PTA), JTO (NDD), JTO (Valiamala), JTO (Koz), JTO (ICN. At the time of the personal hearing the original certificates brought by the applicant were verified with the photostat copies. It was observed some manipulations were made by the applicant and a certificate produced by him is found as a forgery certificate Similar certificates were produced by one Sri. V. Thankaraj also. On further investigation, it was observed the certified portion was taken as common one and the names put on the top is a pasted one. So the claim of the petitioner could net be entertained unless and until the genuineness of the certificate is proved". The Assistant Engineer communicated the following decision to the plaintiff: "I am directed to issue the following report. The Hon'ble CAT has referred the O.A. No. 270/91 filed by Sri. K.G. Selvaraj and others to the respondents for consideration and disposal. Accordingly, the petitioners were given an opportunity to explain their claims by way of a personal hearing which was conducted on 16.5.1991 by the members of the committee constituted by the TDM Trivandrum. Each petitioner was given time to explain their claim and verified the documents if any produced at the time of personal hearing. The decision of the committee after careful examination of the documents produced, considering the points and statements given by each petitioner at the time of personal hearing is enclosed herewith for information. It is hereby regretted to entertain your claim for re-engagement". . A reading of the report makes it clear that the experience certificate furnished by a plaintiff to claim re-engagement was on verification found to be manipulated. It is hereby regretted to entertain your claim for re-engagement". . A reading of the report makes it clear that the experience certificate furnished by a plaintiff to claim re-engagement was on verification found to be manipulated. The report found that the certified portion was taken as common one and the names put on the top is a pasted one and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners could not be entertained unless and until the genuineness of the certificate is proved. The final order was to the effect that in the light of the report, the department with regret informed them that the claim cannot be entertained for re-engagement. 6. The question is whether the finding of a committee consisting of three officials in reference to the certificate produced by a candidate to the effect that it is manipulated and found to be forged one and unless and until the genuineness of the certificate is proved, the claim cannot be accepted, would lead to a claim for damages? 7. The plaintiff in his plaint has averred that the certificates were all issued under the instructions of defendants 4 to 7 with reference to the actual work done by the plaintiff during 1984 to 1987. However, the committee without verification of the records in the possession of the department including the paid vouchers, in a malicious and pre-determined manner reached a finding that the plaintiff made manipulations in the experience certificate and the certificate produced by him is a forged certificate despite emphatic denial by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he had suffered mental agony and suffering as a result of the action of defendants 1 to 3. The report also deprived the plaintiff of further opportunity for engagement as casual labourer under the Telecom Department and employment on regular basis. 8. From the averments and the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, it is clear that though he proceeded on the basis that the report has denied him further employment, he is not.interested in seeking for a re-employment. He is aggrieved by the finding of the committee and, therefore, he seeks damages for the loss suffered. In the statement of account filed along with the plaint, it is stated that he worked out the damages for one year from 18.6.91 at the rate of Rs. He is aggrieved by the finding of the committee and, therefore, he seeks damages for the loss suffered. In the statement of account filed along with the plaint, it is stated that he worked out the damages for one year from 18.6.91 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day for 150 man dates plus loss of expectation and injury to the character. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision in Dr. H. Mukherjee v. S.K. Bhargava (1996) 4 SCC 542). This decision was relied upon by both sides. Their Lordships observed thus: "We shall proceed upon the assumption that it is a suit for damages for harassing the plaintiff and causing him mental pain and injury by the defendant who is supposed to have acted malafide, with a vindictive attitude, and had also indulged in tampering with the official record with a view to tarnish the record, image and career of the plaintiff." In that decision the Supreme Court held that the Civil suit by Government servant filed against his immediate superior for damages for harassing the former by vindictive and malafide orders and proceeds and by fabricating official records, is maintainable. The fact of the case also may be necessary to appreciate the case on hand: In that case, the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant had deliberately and intentionally passed several orders and took several proceedings against the plaintiff, abusing his official position as the administrative superior of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the plaintiff-defendant had tampered with the official record to involve the plaintiff in certain irregularities, all with a view to ensure that the plaintiff is not appointed to the post of Chief Controller. Therefore, the Supreme Court proceeded with the assumption that it is a suit for damages for harassing the plaintiff and causing him mental pain and injury by the defendant who is supposed to have acted malafide, with a vindictive attitude, and had also indulged in tampering with the official record with a view to tarnish the record, image and career of the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the suit is maintainable since it is based on the alleged tortious acts of the defendants. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the suit is maintainable since it is based on the alleged tortious acts of the defendants. In other words, the case against the plaintiff in that case is that the defendant acted on personal vengeance outside the scope of his authorities and has manipulated records with a vindictive attitude to deprive his appointment abusing his official position. In this case, there is no allegation that the committee or the respondents had personal vengeance against the plaintiff and that they have abused their official position and that they have indulged in tampering with the official records with a view to tarnish the image of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the case of the department is that the plaintiff has tried to manipulate the records 'to gain the advantage of a re-engagement and the committee found that the certificate is clearly manipulated and forged. The committee consisting of three officers came to the conclusion after verifying the records in their official capacity. They have no personal vengeance against the plaintiff. The copy communicated to the plaintiff is also an official communication, and not intended for publication. Therefore, an administrative order passed in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal after hearing the parties expressing an opinion about the claim made by the applicant cannot be treated as an order resulting in a civil damage. In this context, the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 can be referred to. S.14 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to the recruitment. This is a case of recruitment, since the petitioner claimed re employment on the basis of his previous service. Definition of "service matters" under S.3(q) states that "service matters" means all matters relating to the conditions of his service, and clause (v) says that in respect of any other matter, whatsoever. That anything connected with service or employment or incidental to employment would be covered by the expression "any other matter whatsoever". Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is referable to his re-engagement and the denial of his claim is also a service matter concerning the recruitment. S.28 excludes the jurisdiction of all the courts except the Supreme Court in relation to the recruitment and matters concerning the recruitment. 9. The plaintiff-respondent confined himself to the claim of damages leaving his demand for re-engagement. S.28 excludes the jurisdiction of all the courts except the Supreme Court in relation to the recruitment and matters concerning the recruitment. 9. The plaintiff-respondent confined himself to the claim of damages leaving his demand for re-engagement. In other words, he does not seek for the primary relief, but wants only the consequential or incidental relief. After going through the plaint and the averment, it is clear that the stand of the plaintiff is not bonafide. As a matter of fact, the plaint is in reference to a service matter, but couched in a clever language to avoid going before the tribunal, confined himself to damages only. The stand of the learned counsel that he is not interested in service and wants to vindicate himself to establish his civil damage cannot be countananced. In the light of his previous application before the Tribunal and appearance before the authorities, it is clear that his principal claim is only re-engagement. If the plaintiffs claim is genuine and true, he should have prepared to go before the authorities and to establish his claim by furnishing the proper certificates or calling for the further records if so needed. Without doing so, the finding of the report is taken as a ground for taking the defendants to the civil court in an unnecessary litigation. In this context, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to a decision in State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (AIR 1987 SC 1554). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the officers expressing independent opinion against court orders or in their evidence, do not amount to contempt of court. Their Lordships observed as follows: "A Government functions by taking decisions on the strength of views and suggestions expressed by the various officers at different levels, ultimately getting finality at the hands of the Minister concerned. Till then, conflicting opinions, views and suggestions would emanate from various officers at the. lower level. There should not be any fetter on the fearless and independent expression of opinion by officers on matters coming before them through the files. This is so even when they consider orders of courts. Officers of the Government are often times confronted with orders of Courts, impossible of immediate compliance for various reasons. They may find i t difficult to meekly submit to such orders. This is so even when they consider orders of courts. Officers of the Government are often times confronted with orders of Courts, impossible of immediate compliance for various reasons. They may find i t difficult to meekly submit to such orders. On such occasions, they will necessarily have to note in the files, the reasons why the orders cannot be complied with and also indicate that the courts would not have passed those orders if full facts were placed before them. The expression of opinion by the officers in the internal files are for the use of the department and not for outside exposure or for publicity. To find the officers guilty for expressing their independent opinion, even against orders of courts in deserving cases, would cause impediments in the smooth working and functioning of the Government. These internal notings, in fact, are privileged documents. Notings made by the officers in the files cannot be made the basis of contempt action against each such officer who makes the noting. If the ultimate action does not constitute contempt, the intermediary suggestions and views expressed in the notings, which may sometimes even amount ex facie disobedience of the courts orders, will not amount to contempt of court. These notings are not meant for publication". The Supreme Court also held that it would be dangerous to find an action for contempt, for the views expressed in the notes file, on the discovery of unpleasant or unsavory notes, on a perusal of the notes file by the Court after getting them summoned. This would impair the independent functioning of the civil service essential to democracy. This would cause impediments in the fearless expression Of opinion by the officers of the Government. 10. The Government has to choose not only the best qualified persons for the posts, but also the persons of good character. It is open to the Government to take into account the character and antecedent of an applicant before he is appointed. In the region of assessment, it is for the recruiting authority to have their yardstick. If the authorities are not satisfied with the character and antecedents that may be a good ground for refusing appointment. Similarly, services of a probationer may be dispensed with for unsatisfactory performance. When there is no extraneous or irrelevant consideration in the decision, it is not open to challenge. If the authorities are not satisfied with the character and antecedents that may be a good ground for refusing appointment. Similarly, services of a probationer may be dispensed with for unsatisfactory performance. When there is no extraneous or irrelevant consideration in the decision, it is not open to challenge. Yet it will be a service matter. The respondents were vested with the power of selection. If they exercise their power not bonafide, beyond their limits, it has to be established. If the act is in excess of the power granted or in an abuse or misuse of power, the matter is capable of rectification by the Court. But the forum for such investigation on such administrative matters is the Tribunal and not the civil court. The Central Administrative Tribunal is constituted under Art.323-A of the Constitution for adjudication or trial of disputes or complaints with respect of recruitment etc. All administrative orders in that connection can be canvassed only before that Tribunal. There is no plea raised nor established that the administrative authorities have acted and rendered findings beyond their powers and on.personal considerations. The learned author Wade in 'Administrative Law', 7th Edition, under the Chapter 'Breach of duty and misfeasance' (page 793) says: "There are now clear indications that the courts will not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some orders which turns out to be ultra vires, unless there is malice or conscious abuse". 11. In this case, the orders were passed by the department through their administrative authorities. They have expressed their opinion about the certificate in their official capacity. Therefore, in my view, it would not be leading to tortious act committed with a view to cause mental agony. If such course of action is allowed, it will open a flood-gate of litigation against the official orders passed by the various administrative authorities. They would not be in a position to independently assess and express their views on the claims made by their subordinates. As happened in this case, instead of seeking the main relief of re-engagement and setting aside the order of denial of employment, a government servant would be in a position to go to the civil Court claiming consequential orders of damages on the various orders and opinions expressed by the officials. As happened in this case, instead of seeking the main relief of re-engagement and setting aside the order of denial of employment, a government servant would be in a position to go to the civil Court claiming consequential orders of damages on the various orders and opinions expressed by the officials. For instance, if there is an order of penalty on grounds of finding like misappropriation, corruption, the Government servant can without challenging the order file a suit against the finding of corruption alone without questioning the ultimate order. In P. Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1965 Ker. 149), the Kerala High Court was considering a case of reversion on the ground of unsuitability. The exclusion of a person for a post may affect his reputation. The stigma attached to such order will invite the procedure to be followed. But decisions of the departments cannot lightly be interfered with by Court. For any stated reason, a candidate is denied of selection, that is a matter to be tested in the appellate forum and not to go to the civil court for damages. 12. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that since the Tribunal cannot award damages and therefore,' he has no other remedy except to go to the civil court, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the stand of the plaintiff is not genuine and bonafide. His attempt is only to achieve the benefit indirectly when he cannot achieve directly by approaching the Tribunal constituted for adjudication of the service matters. This Court cannot permit such a course of action being allowed to be raised in a civil court. That would be encouraging the service matters which had been excluded from the purview of the civil court. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in an identical issue the CBI had registered crime No. C.C. 393/94 against the Ajash Ghosh and others and the C.J.M. has found them guilty of the offences of forgery, cheating etc. and convicted them. He also submits that but for the proceedings pending before the court, they would have taken appropriate criminal action. The pendency or disposal of this revision will not in any way prejudice the department, if they choose, to proceed with prosecution against the respondent. and convicted them. He also submits that but for the proceedings pending before the court, they would have taken appropriate criminal action. The pendency or disposal of this revision will not in any way prejudice the department, if they choose, to proceed with prosecution against the respondent. For all these reasons, the order of the Sub Court is set aside and the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the petitioner/ defendant. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.