Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 189

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjiv Chaturvedi and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1587 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 530 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Ms. Apoorva Jain, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv.

The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

Headnote:ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 25, Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to entertain writ petitions challenging decisions of the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The court analyzed the effect of introducing Article 226(2) of the Constitution and its impact on the jurisdiction of High Courts. The judgment also considered the constitutional validity and scope of judicial review under Article 226(2).
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India appealed against a High Court decision setting aside an order transferring an original application from Nainital Circuit Bench to Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a need for a larger bench to consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction concerning challenges to orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Issues:
Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court decided that a larger bench should address the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in such cases due to its public importance and potential impact on a large number of employees.
Final Decision:
The matter involving territorial jurisdiction was referred to a Larger Bench for resolution.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No. 407/2020, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has set aside order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by which the learned Principal Bench of the Tribunal transferred Original Application (OA) No. 331/109/2020 filed by the original writ petitioner, from the Allahabad Bench (Nainital Circuit Bench) to the Principal Bench, New Delhi, the Union of India has preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are under:

3.1 That the contesting respondent No. 1 herein-original writ petitioner filed original application (OA) before the Nainital Circuit Bench, CAT with the following prayers:

“(a) To call for records and issue appropriate direction/order for quashing present system of 360 degree appraisal being used in empanelment of officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in Central Government, being arbitrary, unreasonable, in violation of principles of natural justice, being in super-session of statutory rules and finding of Parliamentary Committee Report.

(b) To restrain the respondents from filling up the posts of Joint Secretary/equivalent to Joint Secretary rank and also posts above in rank of Joint Secretary in Central Government, through contract system, in future.

(c) To set aside all those provisions of present Central Staffing Scheme, governing constitution of and evaluation by Expert Panel for the purpose of empanelment at Joint Secretary level in Government, issued vide O.M. 36/77/94-EO Central (SM-1)” date 05.01.1996 and modified subsequently, being arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of basic federal structure enshrined into the Constitution.

(d) To direct the respondents to remove huge artificial time lag created between empanelment of officers of different services and between same levels in Central Government and State Government, in case of All India Service Officers.

(e) To direct the respondents to consider the case of Applicant for empanelment to the level of Joint Secretary in view of fulfillment of all the eligibility criteria regarding completion of requisite number of years of service and elevation into Level-14 of Pay Matrix; or alternatively, issue directions to respondents not to reject abovementioned case of Applicant, on any ulterior/subjective/oblique consideration, and decide the same objectively, on merit, facts and in accordance with law only.

(f) To order and appropriate investigation so as to fix responsibility into various irregularities into recruitment process of Joint Secretary rank officers through contract system, taken place in the year 2019, in view of irregularities brought out in Para 3.5 of factual matrix.”

3.2 That thereafter, the Union of India filed transfer application under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act, 1985) seeking transfer of OA filed by the writ petitioner from Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. That by order dated 04.12.2020, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, ordered transfer of the said OA to the Principal Bench, New Delhi by observing that:

“A perusal of the prayer in the O.A. discloses that the very procedure for empanelment for the post of Joint Secretary is sought to be assailed. The matters of this nature have their own impact on the very functioning of the Central Government. It is felt that the O.A. deserves to be heard by Principal Bench. Since the hearings are taking place through video conferencing, no prejudice are taking place through video conferencing, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the P.T., i.e. applicant in the O.A. also.”

3.3 The order dated 04.12.2020 transferring OA No. 331/109/2020 from N