Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Piyush Tyagi - Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9008 of 2023 and CM APPL. No. 34164 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2023
Interview Denial - Recruitment - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 14, Section 28 - The court discussed the jurisdiction and power of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in matters related to recruitment and service matters. It highlighted the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAT in adjudicating service matters and the limited power of the High Court to interfere in such cases. The court emphasized that the appropriate forum to adjudicate the petition was the CAT, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a teaching staff position and was shortlisted for an interview. However, he was denied the opportunity to participate in the interview without a reason. The petitioner filed a petition seeking the court's intervention in conducting the interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was not maintainable as the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters related to recruitment and service matters lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's request for conducting the interview, which was denied by the respondent without providing a reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate forum to adjudicate the petition was the CAT, as per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAT in matters related to service and recruitment, and the limited power of the High Court to interfere in such cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable and fell within the jurisdiction of the CAT as per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:
"I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent to conduct the interview of petitioner, in light of interview letter dated 03.05.2023, or
II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent to state the reason for denial of interview of the Petitioner herein, or
III. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit All of which is humbly prayed."
2. The relevant facts of the instant petition are reproduced herein:
a) Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan (hereinafter "respondent") vide advertisement no. 15/2022, invited applications for recruitment of the teaching staff, non-teaching staff and officers, one such post being Post Graduate Teacher, Computer Science (hereinafter "PGT CS"). The notification stipulated that the candidates applying for the post of PGT CS should possess a degree of B.E or B.Tech (Computer Science/IT) from a recognized University or equivalent degree/diploma from an institution/university recognised by the Government of India.
b) The petitioner applied for the post of PGT CS and cleared the computer based test (CBT), whereby, he was at serial No. 96 in the "List of Candidates Shortlisted for Interview under Direct Recruitment 2022-23".
c) The said interview was supposed to be held on 20th May 2023, and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3rd May 2023. The letter stated the exact time of the interview i.e., 8:30AM alongwith a list of all the requisite documents to be carried by the petitioner.
d) Upon reaching the interview venue, the petitioner was refused to participate in the said interview, without providing a cogent reason. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 30th May 2023, to the respondent, requesting for an interview and seeking reasons as to why the opportunity was denied to him.
e) Aggrieved by the arbitrary act of the respondent denying him opportunity to appear in the interview without providing any reason, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the respondent by denying the opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the above said interview round is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is eligible for the post of PGT CS since he possesses all the necessary qualifications as required in the notification no.15/2022.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had cleared the CBT and had attained serial No. 96 on the list of the shortlisted candidates for the interview.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner reached the interview venue on time and yet was turned away from the interview process without providing any cogent reason for the same.
7. It is submitted that the said act of the respondent of denying the petitioner his legal right to is not tenable in the eyes of law since no proper justification was provided by the respondent.
8. Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner, that the present petition may be allowed, and the reliefs may be granted as prayed.
9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the same may be dismissed at the outset since an alternative remedy lies before another forum and in view of the same, the instant petition is not maintainable.
10. It is submitted, without delving into the merits of the case that the present petition must be dismissed at the threshold, as the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter "CAT").
11. It is submitted that the respondent organization is autonomous and has been established with an objective to cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central Governm
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in adjudicating matters related to service and recruitment, as per the prov....
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.
The High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite alternative remedies when natural justice is violated or extraordinary circumstances exist, emphasizing procedural integrity in publ....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy before seeking relief under Article 226, emphasizing the discretionary nature of th....
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....
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal must be established by where the cause of action arises, especially in online applications.
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....
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
