1. Dispute over promotion eligibility and the jurisdictional competence of a single Member of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 289
1996(2) Supreme 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Indermani Kirtipal -Petitioner
versus
The Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21870 of 1993
Decided on 6-2-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The learned single member of the Administrative Tribunal was competent to decide the matter relating to promotion of petitioner though it may be a case of improper disposal of the matter - for which objection should be taken at the earliest.
The learned single member of the Administrative Tribunal was competent to decide the matter relating to promotion of petitioner though it may be a case of improper disposal of the matter - for which objection should be taken at the earliest.
Subject
Jurisdiction - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Act Referred
Headnote
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 5-Whether Single Member of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction of decide the matter relating to promotion, of the petitioner ? (C.P.C. 1908-Section 21-Constitution of India-Art. 136).
Held : We are of the view that the member had the jurisdiction to decide the matter for the reason that it is not a case of initial lack of jurisdiction. Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench consisting of a single member may also be competent to dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided by him after considering the case on merits, it is not longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction to decide the issue or that the order suffers from initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case of improper disposal of the matter without touching the jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that a single Member lacked jurisdiction to decide matters relating to promotion under Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. (Para 1 )
3. Sitting arrangements and case classifications made for administrative convenience under the Administrative Tribunals Act do not impair the jurisdiction of the member deciding the matter. (Para 2 )
4. Jurisdictional objections must be raised at the earliest stage; failure to do so precludes the unsuccessful party from challenging jurisdiction after a merit-based decision. (Para 2 )
5. Petition and Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does the administrative classification of cases by a Vice-Chairman under Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, affect the jurisdiction of a single Member?
No. The Vice-Chairman's power to classify cases and make sitting arrangements for convenient disposal is a matter of administrative convenience and does not relate to the member's legal jurisdiction to decide the matter. (Para 2 )
7. When must objections regarding the jurisdiction of a tribunal member be raised?
Objections relating to jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest opportunity. If parties omit to plead and raise such objections, the unsuccessful party is precluded from raising the lack of jurisdiction at a later stage. (Para 2 )
8. Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a single Member after the case has been decided on its merits?
No. Once a matter has been decided on merits by a competent bench, including a single member, it is no longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead a lack of jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
ORDER
The petitioner has raised a jurisdictional issue. The learned single Member of the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner s application in O.A. No. 648/92 by order dated May 11, 1993. Learned counsel Shri D.K. Garg relies upon Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act ) to contend that the single Member had no jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to promotion of the petitioner. His case is that the joined the Department as a semi-skilled workman and was later on appointed as Asstt. Store Keeper against OEP vacancy in
Dehradun. When juniors and also seniors to him were promoted in OEP Section, he has singled out violating his right for consideration for appointment to the-higher post in OEP Section. The case of the respondents is that he was in Maintenance Section, though at the initial stage when OEP Section was a cell he had worked therein. Therefore, he was not eligible to be considered. All others were transferred along with the posts to the Ordnance factory while he remained in Maintenance Section. As a consequence, they formed a class, the petitioner being a class apart.
2. The question, therefore, is whether the learned single Member of the Tribunal was competent to decide the matter. We are of the view that the member had the jurisdiction to decide the matter for the reason that it is not a case of initial lack of jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 5 has been empowered to classify classes of cases and make sitting arrangements of benches for convenient disposal of cases; and he had ordered accordingly. Sub-section (2) enumerates various categories of cases which the members would be competent to dispose of. When its member would dispose of which matter is one of administrative convenience; it does not relate to his jurisdiction. Even under Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code objections relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdictional should be raised at the earliest and if the parties omit to plead and raise the objection, at a later stage, unsuccessfully party would be precluded to raise lack of jurisdiction. Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench consisting of a single member may also be competent to dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided by him after considering the case on merits, it is not longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction to decide the issue or that the order suffers from initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case of improper disposal of the matter without touching the jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter.
3. Under these circumstances, we do not think there is any lack of jurisdiction warranting interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*************
