Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Ambika Tyagi (dr.) – Appellant
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 113 of 2023 & C.M. Appls. 7254-7256 of 2023
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Citizenship - Appointment Dispute - Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 7A - Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Scheme - Indian Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2021
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an American citizen and OCI Card Holder, was appointed as a Senior Resident/Demonstrator but was later informed that she was not eligible due to her foreign nationality/OCI status. The appellant filed a writ petition, seeking relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere, stating that appointment and service disputes are to be heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1988.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's appointment dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal or could be addressed by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, which established that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be the only court of first instance for certain areas of law, including matters concerning recruitment. The court also emphasized the importance of alternative remedies and the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court declined to interfere and advised the appellant to seek appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)--The present appeal is arising out of Order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 555/2023.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court was born in the United States of America and is, thus an American citizen.
3. The Citizenship Act, 1955, was amended in August 2005 and Section 7A was introduced by the amending Act. The Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Scheme came into force on account of a notification issued by the Government of India dated 11.04.2005. By virtue of notification dated 11.04.2005, the OCI's were given parity with non-resident Indians in respect of facilities available to them in economic, financial and educational fields except in matters relating to the acquisition of agricultural or plantation properties.
4. The Government of India issued another notification dated 05.01.2009 and various benefits were extended to OCI Card Holders and OCI Card Holders were permitted to pursue their profession as medical doctors. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant is an OCI Card Holder and was selected for the post of Senior Resident/Demonstrator.
5. The result of the examination was published on 15.06.2022 and finally the Appellant was appointed by an order dated 14.12.2022. The Appellant submitted an application to extend her joining period and by an order dated 05.01.2023, no extension was given to her and she was informed that she was not eligible as she was a foreign national/OCI Card Holder in the light of the Indian Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2021.
6. The memorandum issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences dated 05.01.2023 reads as under:
"ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE ACADEMIC SECTION (II)
No. F.10-341/2022(July)-ACAD.-I
Dated: 05.01.2023
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Extension of Date of Joining of Senior Resident/Demonstrator in respect of Dr. Ambika Tyagi, Selected Candidate of Senior Resident/Demonstrator in the waiting list for the session July, 2022 in the Department of Medical Oncology
With reference to his/her letter dated 29.12.2022, on the subject cited above, Dr. Ambika Tyagi, Selected Candidate of Senior Resident/Demonstrator in the waiting list for the session July, 2022 in the Department of Medical Oncology is informed that the request for extension for date of joining to the post of Senior Resident/Demonstrator has been examined by the competent authority, however, the same has not been acceded to as she is not eligible being Foreign National/OCI Cardholder vide Indian Gazette notified under File No. 26011/CC/05/2018-OCI dated 04.03.2021.
Sd/-
(REGISTRAR)
Dr. Ambika Tyagi
B-176, INDRA VIHAR KOTA-324005, Rajasthan"
7. The Appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 05.01.2023, preferred a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies available in law before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
8. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter as the Appellant was claiming appointment in the services of All India Institute of Medical Sciences and it is an undisputed fact that the matters relating to appointment and other service disputes are to be heard at the first instance by the Central Administrative Tribunal keeping in view The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1988 and the notifications issued thereunder.
9. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:
"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
The judgment established the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal for certain areas of law, emphasizing the importance of alternative remedies and the limitations of the cour....
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring candidates' qualifications are fairly considered in recruitment matters, and affirmed the tribunal's duty to address constitutional challenges to rules....
Administrative Tribunals are competent to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of statutory rules and regulations, excluding their own parent statute. Consequently, such Tribunals must functio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that all orders of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are appealable to the Supreme Court only within a period of 60 days from the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative forum, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, is available for redressal of grievances, the High Court may not enter....
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter; such stipulations are void and against public policy.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
