IMPORTANT POINTS
Litigants are not entitled to directly approach the High Court overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The law laid down in (1997) 3 SCC 261 is binding on the High Court.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in these appeals are Non-State Civil Service Officers (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-SCS Officers”). They filed an impleadment application in the Delhi High Court for being impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition No.19103-04 of 2008 filed by Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others before the High Court whereupon the High Court by an order dated 23rd April 2008 allowed them to intervene and further allowed them to make submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition. They were also given liberty to file affidavits.

3. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, these appellants filed affidavits. After the High Court passed its impugned judgment dated 14.11.08 they have filed these appeals assailing the said judgment.

4. At the outset of their arguments this Court wanted learned counsel for the appellants to satisfy this Court about their locus to participate in the controversy at the stage when the matter was before the High Court in view of the fact that admittedly these appellants were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘C.A.T.’).

5. Before the C.A.T. there were three applicants namely, Hemraj Singh Chauhan, Anwarul Haque and Ram Nawal Singh who were common both in O.A. No.1097/06 and O.A. No.1137/06. Apart from those three persons, Ramesh Chandani and K.K. Shukla were also applicants in O.A. No. 1137/06. Both the original applications were heard together.

6. The C.A.T. in its judgment dated 15.12.2006 held that O.A. No.1097/06 was without merit and dismissed the same and O.A. No.1137/06 was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to convene the meeting of D.P.C. Selection Committee to fill-up the posts which ultimately remain unfulfilled in 2001, 2002 and 2004 and to consider all eligible SCS Officers in the zone of consideration in the respective years including the Officers who were put in the select list of those years but could not be appointed in the absence of integrity certificate. The C.A.T. directed that the said order be complied within the period of four months.

7. However, on the said judgment being challenged before the High Court by Hemraj Singh Chauhan, the High Court set aside the judgment of the C.A.T. and the Central Government and the State Government were directed to undertake the cadre reviewing exercise with reference to the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004 in the manner indicated in the High Court judgment within eight weeks from date.

8. However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others,1 (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placitum f & g of the report and contended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar (supra), they can come before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of C.A.T. as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered.

9. This Court is of the view that the understanding of the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is not correct and the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) is just to the contrary.

10. The Constitution Bench in Chandra Kumar (supra) held that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution (See paragraphs 78 & 79, pages 301 and 302 of the report). The Constitution Bench also held that various Tribunals created under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution, will function as Court of first instance and are subject to the power of judicial review of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench also held that these Tribunal