Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 111 (ORI)

MISS ANURAG MOHANTY v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-03-14

A.S.NAIDU, P.K.MOHANTY

body2001
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The petitioner who failed to qualify in the Civil Services Examination, 1996 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (in short 'the U.P.S.C.'), has filed this writ application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly, praying for issuance of a direction to recommend her name for appointment to Civil Service and to appoint her in one of the vacant posts amongst other consequential reliefs. 2. Admittedly the petitioner appeared for the Civil Services Examination of 1996 conducted by the U.P.S.C., and was assigned Roll No. 001950, but unfortunately she was not recommended by the U.P.S.C. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court making several allegations relating to reservation procedure, setting of wrong questions, defective evaluation of answer papers, consideration of Selection Boards, appointment of opp. party No. 3 as a member of the selection Board and so on and so forth. 3. On receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opp. parties 2 and 3 repudiating the allegations made in different paragraphs of the writ application. 4. In course of hearing of the writ application, on behalf of the opp. parties, a preliminary point was raised regarding maintainability of the writ application before this Court. It is submitted that as the dispute relates to Civil Services Examination of 1996 i. e. recuitment to the Central Civil Services, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the only appropriate forum for agitating such grievance is the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further contended that in absence of all the candidates who were selected in the Civil Services Examination, 1996 and were appointed 3 years back, this writ application is not maintainable. It is also further contended that the petitioner after appearing in the Examination, and being unsuccessful to qualify, is estopped from challenging the modality adopted. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length. Several rullings have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, but none of them relates to the maintainability of the dispute relating to recruitment to a Civil Post before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The legislature in its prudence has constituted the Central Administrative Tribunal by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Several rullings have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, but none of them relates to the maintainability of the dispute relating to recruitment to a Civil Post before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The legislature in its prudence has constituted the Central Administrative Tribunal by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunals constituted under the Act are effective substitutes to the High Courts in the scheme of administration of justice and they are entitled to exercise powers thereof. They substitute not only in form and de-jure but in content and de facto, as has been observed by the Apes Court in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 386. The Apex Court has further held that the power exercised by the High Court in service matters under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, was completely excluded and vested upon the Administrative Tribunals. Under the aforesaid backdrop, it would be proper to refer section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which is quoted herein below : ''14. The Apex Court has further held that the power exercised by the High Court in service matters under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, was completely excluded and vested upon the Administrative Tribunals. Under the aforesaid backdrop, it would be proper to refer section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which is quoted herein below : ''14. Jurisdiction, Powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal : (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts except the Supreme Court in relation to : (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment to any All India Service or to any Civil Service of the Union or a Civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filed by a civilian ; (b) all service matters concerning- (i) a member of any All India Service; (ii) a person not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any Civil Service of the Union or any Civil Post under the Union; (iii) a civilian not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence; and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation or Society owned or controlled by the Government ; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Sub-clause (ii) or Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any Corporation or society or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. Explanation :---For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that reference to "Union" in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union Territory." Reading, of section 14 makes it abundantly clear that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all courts except the Supreme Court immediately before the appointed day in relation to the matters set out in the section. Admittedly, on the date on which the present dispute arose, the Central Administrative Tribunal was already established. Thus the jurisdiction of all courts including the High Courts except Supreme Court stood extinguished. Section 14(1)(a) deals with recruitments and the matters concerning recruitment to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union and to any civil post under the Union. 6. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the recruitment procedure adopted by the authorities is not justified. Such a grievance can be raised by the petitioner who is a person aggrieved by the action or inaction of the authorities only before the Central Administrative Tribunal under whose domain the dispute can be effectively adjudicated by operation of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 7. In view of the clear position enumerated above this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a dispute regarding recruitment to any civil post. Accordingly, we hold that the present writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner who has taken part in the recruitment procedure conducted by the U.P.S.C. and we dismiss the writ application on this preliminary ground. P. K. Mohanty, J. 8. I agree. 9. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed