JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.:—The only point for decision in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to the promotion of the two petitioners. The Tribunal having been established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would have no jurisdiction if the petitioners be members of "armed forces of the Union", because of what has been stated in Section 2(a) of this Act. The point for determination, therefore, is whether the two petitioners, who at the relevant time were Lower Division Clerks, can be said to be member of the armed forces" or they have to be taken as "civilians".

2. The two petitioners having been appointed as clerks of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, the submission of Shri Mohanty, appearing for the petitioners, is that as this police force is an "armed force of the Union", the incumbents have to be taken as members of this Force, because of the definition of this expression as given in Section 2(1)(p) of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992, for short, the Act. This submission is countered by Shri Vaje, appearing for the Union of India, because, according to him, apart from an officer, subordinate officer or an underofficer, which the two petitioners admittedly are not, the only other person who can be regarded as member of the Force, because of what has been stated in aforesaid section read with the definition of "enrolled person" in Section 2(1)(j), is Constable, as would appear from what has been mentioned in Section 153(1)(d) of the Act.

3. Let us first see what do the provisions of the Act reveal? As Shri Mohanty has placed strong reliance on the aforesaid defining clauses, along with Section 6 of the Act, let these provisions be noted. Section 2(1)(p) has defined "member of the Force" to mean "an officer, a subordinate officer, an under-officer or other enrolled person." Clause (j) of the sub-section (1) has defined enrolled person" to mean "under -officer or other person enrolled under this Act." (Emphasis sup-plied). Section 153 dealing with rank structure has dealt with classification of the officers and other members of the Force in accordance with their ranks and clause (d) of sub-section (1) has categorised constable only as "enrolled persons other than under-officers". These provisions leave no doubt that the only "other enrolled person" of which clause (p) speaks of is constable.

4. Shri Mohanty, however, submits that Section 6 of the Act enlarges the meaning as this section states that mode of enrolment and procedure of enrolment shall be such as may be prescribed. Learned counsel then speaks to draw assistance from rule 187 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 which is on the subject of "Transitory provision" and states that any rule or order applicable to the Force on commencement of these rules shall, unless repugnant to these rules, continue to apply unless and until abrogated or modified by the Central Government or any other competitive authority. The purpose of referring us to this rule that a Lower Division Clerk of Central Reserve Police Force has been given the status of a Head Constable as would appear from what has been stated under the title "Status of Ministerial Staff in Chapter VI of the establishment Manual of the Central Reserve Police Force, 1976. Shri Mohanty states that before the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act had come to be enacted, the provisions governing Central Reserve Police Force were applicable to the members of the Force at hand, and so, the aforesaid provision finding place in the Establishment Manual would apply to the petitioners also by force of Section 6 of the Act.

5. We find no merit in the aforesaid submission because Section 6 itself deals with the person to be enrolled to the Force. As such the person concerned has to be "enrolled person" within the meaning of clause (j) of sub-section (1)