Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1730 (HP)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of H. P.

2018-09-26

SANDEEP SHARMA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Even though a very innocuous prayer has been made in this petition for directing the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, “Administrative Tribunal”) to decide the petition (TA No. 4360/2015, titled as Ranjeet Singh vs. State of H.P. and others) filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, however the question is whether such petition is maintainable and should in fact be entertained without there being any justifiable cause carved out by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner after serving in Indian Army was enrolled with Ex-servicemen Cell in the year 2000. Thereafter on 15.10.2008, he came to be appointed as Operation Theater Assistant on contract basis and joined as such at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur on 21.11.2008. It is claimed that the petitioner thereafter sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding vacancy position of the Operation Theater Assistants and from the information so received, he came to know that as many as 119 posts were lying vacant in the respondent-Department. Accordingly, he filed CWP No. 7931/2013 before this Court claiming therein that he should have been appointed to the regular post of Operation Theater Assistant w.e.f. 2005 with all consequential benefits instead of 2008 when he came to be appointed on contract basis despite there being 11 regular posts available in ex-servicemen quota. 3. The writ petition, on creation of learned Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 4360/2015. 4. It is averred that the petitioner had filed an application for early hearing, which was registered as M.A. No. 855/2016, however, the same has not been decided till date and during this period, the respondent-Department has made promotion to the next higher post of Central Sterilization Supply Supervisor on the basis of seniority list as it stood on 31.3.2016 ignoring preferential claim of the petitioner. It is on the basis of these allegations that the petitioner has sought the aforesaid reliefs. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record carefully. 6. It is on the basis of these allegations that the petitioner has sought the aforesaid reliefs. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record carefully. 6. It cannot be disputed that it was only after decision of seven Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and ors, 1997 (3) SCC 261 that the powers of judicial review over the decision of the Tribunals were held to be that of High Court and Supreme Court by declaring Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution of India to be unconstitutional to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution of India. This was on the premise that the power of judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot be taken away even by way of constitutional amendment. Hence, it will be indeed a rare case where the High Court can hold that a writ petition against an order of inferior Court or Tribunal is not maintainable, however at the same time, it is always open for the High Court, in appropriate cases, to hold that the writ petition is not entertainable on account of proprietary, constitutional scheme, some settled rules of self-restraint or its peculiar facts etc. 7. As regards service matters, Administrative Tribunal has been specifically empowered to entertain at the first instance and adjudicate upon by virtue of its parent statute, which also can be subject to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of the High Court. 8. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that the petitioner has not assailed any order of the Administrative Tribunal, but has rather sought directions for early disposal of the petition. The Tribunal, as observed above, is a creation of statute i.e. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and by virtue of the Act, the administrative control vests with the Chairman and in his absence Vice Chairman and in absence of both, senior most member irrespective of whether he is Judicial or Administrative Officer. Even though on the judicial side, however, the Chairman etc. Even though on the judicial side, however, the Chairman etc. is only the first amongst the equals, however the administrative control vests in the Chairman where he is master of roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute the benches of Tribunal and allocate the cases to the benches so constituted. 9. Thus, it is for the Chairman to decide how best he is to manage the administrative working of the Tribunal including listing/allocation of the cases. He has the administrative and judicial control of the Tribunal, therefore, unless and until, there are allegations of bias, mala fides or some irregularities in the allocation of work or working of the Tribunal, the High Court shall loathe to interfere and direct the Tribunal to hear the matter in a particular manner only because the petitioner desires so. This would virtually amount to interfering in the autonomy, independence and working of the Tribunal, which is impermissible. 10. It is more than settled that the orders passed by the Tribunal are open to judicial review that too on well settled parameters only. 11. Even though, the power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely vast, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down certain guidelines and self imposed limitations, subject to which High Court would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines may not be mandatory in all circumstances. But one thing is established that the High Court does not act like a proverbial “bull in china shop” in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. “First come first serve” is a normal rule even in the Courts and Tribunals and even though such practice cannot religiously be followed yet, allout endeavour has to be made by them to decide the cases as per its age i.e. as per date of institution. Therefore, merely because a person feels that his case is more important than the others, he on this ground alone cannot be permitted to jump the cue. To each litigant his case is not only important, but deserves priority. Therefore, prima facie, the writ petition is not maintainable and cannot be entertained as there is no justifiable cause for the same. 13. To each litigant his case is not only important, but deserves priority. Therefore, prima facie, the writ petition is not maintainable and cannot be entertained as there is no justifiable cause for the same. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find this petition to be totally misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.