Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 548 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan

2008-02-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 25.2.84 and 8.1.85 (Annex.1 and III in the appeal), so far as it excludes the name of the petitioner from the select list of Head Constables, also quash and set-aside the order dated 17.7.1991 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short `the learned Tribunal') as also to appoint the petitioner on the post of Head Constable w.e.f. the date his juniors were given promotion with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order dated 25.2.1984 by which he was superseded on the ground that he has not passed the qualifying examination and 8.1.1985 by which the legitimate claim was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner further mentioned in the appeal that on 30.3.1983 he was given Commendation Certificate and cash award of Rs. 5/-. The petitioner further mentioned in the appeal that on 9.7.1997 case of one person namely Mr. Mukesh Kumar was reconsidered and included in the select list. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations. 3. The respondent filed a detailed reply before the learned Tribunal controverting the facts mentioned by the present petitioner. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner, after considering the facts and circumstances and entire material placed before him, vide order dated 17.7.1991. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.7.1991, the present, petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. 6. Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SCC 524 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under : "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisor power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. In exercising the supervisor power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record on when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed (sic) to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 9. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the order dated 17.7.1991 passed by learned Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 17.7.1991. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 17.7.1991. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The order dated 17.7.1991 passed by learned Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 81/1985 is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******