Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Priyesh Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W. P. (S) (DB) No. 3586 of 2020
Decided on : 12-01-2021
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – Sections 20, 21, 22 – Appointment – Present writ petition has been filed by writ petitioner for setting aside order passed in O.A. by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby said O.A. has been admitted for hearing, rejecting preliminary objection raised by present petitioner. – Present O.A. has filed and neither representation had been disposed of by competent authority, nor period of six months had expired. – As such, O.A. was premature and Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain impugned proceeding due to statutory bar as envisaged under Sections 20 and 21 of Act. – Senior counsel has submitted that in any event respondent No.5 had himself chosen to file representation before competent authority, and now it is too late for him to argue that against order of petitioner’s appointment, he had no alternative remedy than to move before Tribunal, or that his representation could not be taken as alternative remedy as envisaged under Section 20(2) of Act. – Senior counsel has drawn our attention towards Office Memorandum, as clarified by Office Memorandum issued by Govt. of India, which have been brought on record, in order to show that representations are means to avail alternative remedy. – Held, It is evident that at present Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide dispute between parties and in interest of justice, dispute should be resolved by statutory Tribunal formed for this specific purpose. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with impugned order of Tribunal passed on 21.10.2020 in O. A., as by said order only O.A. has been admitted by Tribunal, and presently there is no finding by Tribunal on merits of case, either in favour or against respective parties. – Tribunal is yet to decide dispute on merits, for which Tribunal now admittedly has jurisdiction, whether or not at time of filing O.A. representation filed by respondent No.5 could have operated as a bar to jurisdiction of Tribunal under Sections 20 and 21 of Act. – Court refrain to decide this issue, as same shall only be a futile academic exercise. – Writ Petition Disposed Of
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Kumar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the order dated 21.10.2020 passed in O.A.No.050/00287/2020 (Shashi Nandkeolyar Vs. The Union of India and Ors.), by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby the said O.A. has been admitted for hearing, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
3. The dispute relates to the appointment to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force), Jharkhand. The selection process was initiated for selection and appointment to the said post, by a committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand. The said committee, vide its recommendation dated 17.02.2020, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, recommended the names of three persons, i.e. one Lal Ratnakar Singh, Shashi Nandkeolyar, the respondent No. 5, and Priyesh Kumar Verma, the present writ petitioner. On culmination of the selection process, finally the present writ petitioner had been appointed to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force), Jharkhand, vide notification dated 24.06.2020, as contained in Annexure-9 (Srs.) to the writ application. This appointment was objected by the present respondent No. 5 by filing representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, on 30.06.2020. It appears that thereafter, the matter has been brought to the litigation by filing O.A. No. 050/00287/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). As per the present petitioner, this O.A. has been filed on 16.07.2020. Filing of this O.A. by the respondent No. 5 has been objected by the present petitioner raising preliminary objections mainly on two grounds:
(ii) Non-exhaustion of statutory alternative remedy as provided under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has decided the preliminary objection in favour of the present respondent No. 5, by holding that O.A. is maintainable, vide impugned order dated 21.10.2020, which has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, though has also taken the point of non-joinder of necessary parties, in the present writ application, but in course of arguments, very fairly confined his arguments to the point of non-exhaustion of statutory alternative remedy, operating as a bar under Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that there are several mistakes of facts in the impugned order, due to which the impugned order is vitiated, being based on wrong assumptions. One such factual mistake, which has vitiated the impugned order is that the Tribunal has proceeded on the wrong assumption that the petitioner before it (respondent No.5 herein), was going to superannuate on 31.12.2020, and thus, he had no time to exhaust the alternative remedy, whereas actually the respondent No.5 is going to superannuate in the month of April 2021, and he could wait for his representation being disposed of, or for a period of six months, the statutory period under Section 20(2)(b) of the Act, after which his O.A. could be entertained by the Tribunal. The basic objection is that against the order of appointment dated 24.06.2020, representation had been filed on 30.06.2020 by the respondent No. 5. In this background, as per the mandate of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, O.A. could have been filed only within the period of one year after the lapse of six months from the date of representation or after disposal of the representation, whichever was earlier. The present O.A. has filed on 16.07.2020 and neithe
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
