Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 178 (CAL)

Sudipata Mukherjee v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-02-08

S.P.TALUKDAR

body2008
Judgment :- (1) THE writ petitioner, a highly qualified person, being B. Sc. (Hons) in Botany, M. Sc. in Agriculture, worked with Tata tea Ltd. till 31st March, 2005. He obtained Ph. D in Agriculture in 1994. He joined Seva Bharati on 1. 4. 2005. He was appointed as Training organizer in Krishi Vigyan Kendra on 22. 4. 2006. In response to a newspaper advertisement, he applied for the post of Training Organizer in Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya. On receipt of a call, he appeared in the interview held on 7. 8. 2006. But since then, nothing had been heard from the said authority. On enquiry, it could be learnt that selection for such post for the District of Hooghly had been made, but nothing was done about the filling up of the post for the District of howrah. A letter dated 5th March, 2007 from the learned Advocate of the petitioner, by way of demand justice practically remained unattended. Result of the interview has not been published thereby compelling the petitioner to seek redress before this Court. (2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 and 5, by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition, denied the material allegations made by the petitioner. It was specifically alleged that the writ petitioner does not satisfy the requirements as he does not posses five years experience in the pay scales of Lecturer in a Government or Semi-government Organization. Though after his interview, the Selection Committee prepared one man panel and recommended his selection, the Executive Council did not accept the same for the aforesaid ground. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition, took the stand that Indian Council of agricultural Research (in short, icar) is a Society registered and constituted under the "societies Registration Act and managed and controlled by the Government of India. As per Notification No. A 11019/13/87 dated 20th April, 1987, ICAR comes within the purview of section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. (3.) SECTION 14 (2) of the said Act clearly permits such inclusion of the corporations/societies/ other authorities owned or controlled by the government within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. (3.) SECTION 14 (2) of the said Act clearly permits such inclusion of the corporations/societies/ other authorities owned or controlled by the government within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. Sub-section (2) of section 14 reads as follows : 2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of subsection (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of india and to Corporations (or Societies) owned or controlled by government, not being a local or other authority or Corporation (or Society) controlled or, owned by a State Government. Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of local or other authorities or corporations (or Societies). (4.) IT was contended that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which is a Society controlled by Government, was brought within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal w. e. f. 15th May, 1987. (5.) SUCH change in the legal position was brought to the notice of this court by learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, while submitting that the present application is not maintainable as the petitioner should have had knocked the door of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievances. (6.) MR. Lahiri, referring to the decision in the case of Lal Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors. , as reported in AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 1, submitted that it cannot be held that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition. (7.) DERIVING inspiration from the decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. , as reported in (2002)5 scc 111 , it was contended by Mr. Lahiri that the question involved is whether ICAR is a State within the meaning of Article 12. (7.) DERIVING inspiration from the decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. , as reported in (2002)5 scc 111 , it was contended by Mr. Lahiri that the question involved is whether ICAR is a State within the meaning of Article 12. According to him, if the answer is yes, this Court has power and authority to pass order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (8.) MR. Lahiri further referred to the decision in the case of P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , as reported in (1984) 2 SCC 141 , in support of his submission that ICAR is covered by the expression other authorities in Article 12 being an instrumentality of Central Government and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction. (9.) IT appears that that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 could not be appreciated in its proper perspective. It is not in. dispute that ICAR is covered within the scope and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the Apex Court and the high Court can very well exercise power under Article 32 and Article 226 respectively. But, the question arises as to how and when ? The legal position in this regard is well settled. (10.) IN the backdrop of the present case, it is for the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal first and if aggrieved by any order or decision of the said Tribunal, can very well knock the door of this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Division Bench. (11.) IN such circumstances, I do not think that there is any need for further discussion. The present application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and of course, without dealing with the merit of the grievances. (12.) THIS disposes of W. P. No. 6319 (W) of 2007. Writ application disposed of.