SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Cal) 594

High Court of Calcutta
Pratap Kumar Ray, Mrinal Kanti Sinha, JJ.
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ADMIN.) – Appellant
Versus
Prem Narayan Pandey – Respondent
W.P.C.T. No. 310 of 2008
Decided on : Apr 29, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Paresh Chandra Maiti, Dwgadas Purakaystha, Md. Kalam, Farook M. Razack, Anup Kumar Biswas, Priyanka Bhutoria, Abdur Rahaman, Subrata Chakraborty

The Parliament lacks the jurisdiction to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to include "society" within the ambit of "public service" and "post" under Article 323A of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

The Parliament lacks the jurisdiction to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to include "society" within the ambit of "public service" and "post" under Article 323A of the Constitution of India. This amendment is ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) adjudicating a service dispute raised by one of its employees. The main issue before the court was whether the CAT had jurisdiction to decide service disputes of KVS employees.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Parliament lacked the jurisdiction to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to include "society" within the ambit of "public service" and "post" under Article 323A of the Constitution of India. This amendment was ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Issues: 1. Whether the Parliament had the jurisdiction to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to include "society" within the ambit of "public service" and "post" under Article 323A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had jurisdiction to decide service disputes of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) employees?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Article 323A of the Constitution of India, which empowers Parliament to enact laws for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government. 2. The court held that the word "and" appearing between the words "public service" and "post" in Article 323A is conjunctive and not disjunctive. Therefore, only disputes relating to "public services and posts" could be brought under the ambit of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. The court further held that the Parliament could not amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to include "society" within the ambit of "public service" and "post" under Article 323A because this amendment would have violated the constitutional framework for amending the Constitution under Article 368.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the CAT and held that the CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the original applications filed by the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.

JUDGMENT

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.

1. HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. WRIT application W.P.C.T. No.310 of 2008 has been filed assailing the order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal adjudicating a service dispute raised by one employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan against Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In course of hearing the Court felt that the questions as framed below, for effective adjudication of the matter, as the answers of those questions may go to the root of the matter regarding jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal to decide service dispute of any employee of the Society registered under the Society Registration Act and is controlled by the Central Government, though the jurisdiction issue of the Tribunal was not raised by the present writ petitioner or by the respondent employee, should be dealt with and as such this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has set up following questions as additional points for decision, on giving full opportunity of hearing to the respective parties before us. The Court has power to frame the questions as additional points having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case V. K. Mqjhotra v. Union of India reported in (2003) 8 SCC 40 paragraph 8, a judgment of two Judges Bench and the judgment passed in the case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka reported in (2008) 3 SCC 574, a judgment of three Judges Bench, paragraph 11 of the report.

On the said canvass, we framed the following questions:

"1. Whether of preamble, long title under section 2, section 4(d) and (rr), section 8, 11, 12, 14 and 20 of Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1986 incorporating the word 'Society' in Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the principal Act, in different sections as referred to by inclusion of word 'society', are ulta vires to Article 323A of the Constitution of India, when Article 323A did not stipulate the word 'society', empowering Parliament to frame law for setting up Tribunal in respect of service dispute of employees of 'Society' controlled by Government and source of setting up Administrative Tribunal, is Article 323A of the Constitution of India and whether by this process a breach of Article 368 of the Constitution of India, was committed by Parliament?

2. Whether meaning of the word 'and' joining two words 'public service' and 'post' is disjunctive as 'or', appearing in Article 323A of Constitution of India?

3. Whether the power of the Parliament to set up/establish Administrative Tribunals to deal with the recruitment and condition of service of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority or of any corporation owned and controlled by the government, could be exercised to resolve service disputes of holder of services and post thereof only or does it require that such services and such posts, should be "public services and posts" in connection with the affairs of those bodies mentioned, namely, union or state or local or other authority or any corporation?

4.Whether an employee working in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is the holder of post which could be termed as public service and public post ?

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan being a society whether could be brought under the umbrella of Article 323A for exercising the power by the Parliament to amend the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, by act 19 of 1986, for incorporating word 'society' in section 14(l)(c) under chapter III of the said Act which relates to jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunals and in other provisions of said Act ?

6. Whether in absence of incorporation of the word "society" under Article 323A specifically, but incorporation of the word "Corporation specifically", in the said provision by constitutional amendment having regard to Article 368 of the Constitution of India, Parliament can in exercise of power under Article 32


























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top