1998 Supreme(SC) 857

1998(6) Supreme 524
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Bhubaneshwar)
S.C. Agrawal, S. Saghir Ahmad and M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4215-4217 of 1998 and 4212-4214 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10472-10474 of 1995 and SLP (C) Nos. 18714-18716 of 1995)
Decided on 25-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Jayant Das, A.K. Pande, Sr. Advocates, Raj Kumar Mehta, R.P. Wadhwani, Vinoo Bhagat, Santosh Kumar, (K.C. Sudav­shan) Advocate for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co., Advocates.

Important Points
1. Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.
2. Once the concerned authorities are satisfied with the eligibility qualifications of the person concerned it is not for the Court or the Tribunal to embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain the qualifications of the said person.

Headnote:(i) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Sections 14, 19 and 20-Jurisdic­tion and power-Scope of-Public interest litigation-Whether could be entertained? No-Tribunal can be approached only by person aggrieved by an order.

       Held : Section 14 of the Act provides that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all Courts except the Supreme Court immediately before the appointed day in relation to matters set out in the section. Similarly, Section 15 provides for the jurisdiction, powers and au­thority of the State Administrative Tribunals in relation to matters set out therein. Sections 19 to 27 of the Act deal with the proce­dure. Section 19 strikes the key-note. Section 20 provides that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant rules. Sec­tion 21 provides for a period of limitation for approaching the Tribu­nal. A perusal of the above provisions shows that the Tribunal can be approached only by ‘persons aggrieved’ by an order as defined. The crucial expression ‘person aggrieved’ has to be construed in the context of the Act and the facts of the case. (Paras 14 & 15)

       The definition of ‘service matters’ found in Section 3(q) shows that in relation to a person the expression means all service matters relating to the condi­tions of his service. The significance of the word ‘his’ cannot be ignored. Section 3(b) defines the word ‘application’ as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to ‘person ag­griev­ed’. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an applica­tion has to be made and the same can be made only by a person ag­grieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the word ‘order’ has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3(q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. If in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated. Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger. (Paras 18 & 21)

       (ii) Service Law-Selection and appointment - Teaching staff -Medical - Appellant’s candidature referred by Service Commission to Director Medical Education and Training to ascertain eligibility-Director certified eligibility-CAT held appellant did not possess eligibility qualification-Once concerned authorities are satisfied with eligibility qualifications Court or Tribunal cannot embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain qualification-Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering technical qualification after brushing aside opinion of experts.

       Held : The facts set out by us earlier would show that the petitioner satisfied the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer. The only conten­tion urged is that the petitioner did not have two years special training in Surgical Gastroenterology from an institution recognised by MCI for giving special training. There is no merit in the conten­tion. The list of recognised Medical Colleges in India published by the MCI contains the name of S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack in SI. No. 80. Thus the said college is a recognised institution. The inter­pretation that the institution should be recognised for giving special training is erroneous. There is no such requirement in the rule. Even the Tribunal has found that the petitioner had acquired sufficient practical experience by assisting the Head of the Depart­ment of Surgical Gastroenterology in the said college for a long period of six years and had several publications to his credit. The Tribunal overlooked that the said experience acquired by the petition­er was recognised to be sufficient to satisfy the requisite qualifica­tion of two years special training by the Director of Medical Educa­tion and Train­ing when a reference was made to him by the Orissa Public Service Commission. It was only after getting the matter clari­fied, the Service Commission called the petitioner for viva voce. Once the concerned authorities are satisfied with the eligibility qualifications of the person concerned it is not for the Court or the Tribunal to embark upon an investigation of is own to ascertain the qualifications of the said person. (Paras 22 & 23)

       We have already referred to the opinion of the Director of Medical Education in the matter of qualifications of the petitioner. There was no justification for the Tribunal to ignore the same. Hence the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering a technical question after brushing aside the opinion of the experts and the concerned authorities. There is no material whatever to accept the contention of the respondents that the petitioner wielded influence over the concerned authorities or that the action of the authorities was vitiated by mala fides. (Para 25)