JUDGMENT :

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed laying a challenge to a communication dated 05.01.2023, issued by Respondent No.1/All India Institute of Medical Sciences, whereby the Petitioner was informed that her request for extension of the date for joining the post of Senior Resident/Demonstrator has been declined on the ground that being Foreign National/OCI Cardholder, she is not eligible by virtue of a Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2021.

2. The genesis of the alleged cause of action in favour of the Petitioner lies in an Advertisement issued by Respondent No. 1 in April, 2022, inviting applications for appointment to the Senior Residency Posts in consonance with the Residency Scheme dated 05.06.1992. Petitioner is stated to have qualified the preliminary examination where after she was called for an interview and placed in a waiting list at serial no. 3. An Offer of Appointment was issued and one of the terms of the appointment was that the Petitioner has to resign from her existing employment to join Respondent No. 1. After verification of the self-declaration form and the other documents submitted by the Petitioner including the OCI card, according to the Petitioner, she was orally informed that she was not eligible for the post as she was an OCI cardholder.

3. From the narrative of facts, it is evident that the matter relates to appointment to the post of Senior Resident/Demonstrators pursuant to an advertisement issued by AIIMS. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 has clearly ruled that the Central Administrative Tribunals shall be the only Courts of first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted albeit with an observation that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be ousted. Relevant paras of the judgment are as follows:

“90. We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power of judicial review of the High Courts. We have already held that in respect of the power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. It has been contended before us that the Tribunals should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot bring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result in splitting up proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such a view were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.

Moreover, even in these special branches of law, some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional questions on a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a large majority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no power to handle matters involving constitutional issues would not serve the purpose for which they were constituted. On the other hand, to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes. While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter.

91. It has also been contended before us that even