1995 Supreme(Mad) 980

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R LAKSHMANAN
V. Sasitharan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 19967, 20297, 20454, 20455 and 21153/1994
Decided On : 07 December 1995

The question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Headnote:

Writ petitions challenging the extension of service of the Chief Secretary, as per G.O.Rt. No. 4297, Public (Special A) Department, dated November 25, 1994, are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Fact of the Case:

The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Thiru N. Haribaskar, was due to retire on November 30, 1994. On October 26, 1994, he put up a note to the Chief Minister intimating that he would be superannuating on November 30, 1994. The Chief Minister proposed to extend his term by six months and papers were forwarded to the Governor. The Governor passed an order under Rule 35(2) Clause 16 of the Business Rules that the cases relating to appointment, posting and promotion of certain categories of officers, which include the Chief Secretary, be submitted to the Governor after clearance by the Chief Minister and before issue of orders. The Governor also passed an order that the Chief Minister cannot interpret Rule 35(4) as to confer a power to override constitutional provisions. The Chief Minister issued a direction under Rule 35(4) relating to disposal of certain matters by the Chief Minister. A point was also made that the order of the Government dated November 25, 1994 appears to be ante dated in order to overcome the order of refusal passed by the Governor.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petitions challenging the extension of service of the Chief Secretary are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court further held that the exclusion of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and exclusion must have been within the very provision of Section 28 of the said Act. Then again, Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act contemplates determination of service matters, which is defined in Section 3(q) of the said Act. For all the aforesaid reasons, the court held that the writ petitions to issue a writ of quo-warranto are maintainable only in this Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions challenging the extension of service of the Chief Secretary are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the question in issue relating to extension of service is a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petitions challenging the extension of service of the Chief Secretary are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987-I-LLJ-128) (SC) and observed that the scope of the definition is to be construed in a very wide manner. The court also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Dr. H. T. Venkata Setty v. Shiva Sailam 1991, L.I.C., 694, which held that even a writ of quo-warranto is not maintainable before the High Court in respect of service matter of a Government servant. 2. The court held that the question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1993, S.C., 383, which held that the scope of the definition is to be construed in a very wide manner.

Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the extension of service of the Chief Secretary, as per G.O.Rt. No. 4297, Public (Special A) Department, dated November 25, 1994, are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the question in issue relating to extension of service is not a matter falling within the definition of “service matters” within the meaning of Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.