Advocates:
['ABHIJAY NEGI', 'ASTT S G', '', 'AAZMEEN SHEIKH', 'C S C', 'AJAY JOSHI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

AND

JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 98 OF 2022

18TH APRIL, 2022

Between:

Rajiv Bhartari

…… Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & others. …… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner :

Mr. Abhijay Negi, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the Union of India :

Mr. Aazmeen Sheikh, the learned Standing

Counsel

Counsel for the State. :

Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing

Counsel.

Counsel for respondent no. 4 :

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned Senior

Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Joshi, the

learned counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the

following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Petitioner is a member of Indian Forest Service,

who was serving as Principal Conservator of Forest (Head of

Forest Force), Uttarakhand. He is aggrieved by the order

dated 25.11.2021, passed by Secretary, Department of

Forest, whereby he has been transferred to the post of

Chairman, Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board, Dehradun. This

order has been challenged by petitioner on various grounds,

including that he was transferred in the absence of any

recommendation by Civil Services Board, which according to

petitioner, was mandatory.

1

2.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have

raised an objection that petitioner is member of an All India

Service therefore, he has a statutory remedy available under

Section 14(1) (b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not

dispute that petitioner has remedy of approaching Central

Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985. He, however, submits that since

principles of natural justice were violated by the respondents

while transferring petitioner and the authority who passed the

impugned transfer order was not competent for the purpose,

therefore, petitioner can directly approach this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution without approaching the

Tribunal. In support of this contention, petitioner’s counsel

has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771.

4.

We have gone through the judgment relied by

petitioner’s counsel. The said judgment is distinguishable on

facts, as in that case Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with

a case under G.S.T. Act. In the present case, we are

concerned with the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which

contains provision in Section 14(1) which excludes jurisdiction

of all Courts except Hon’ble Supreme Court, as regards

matters which are within jurisdiction of Central Administrative

Tribunal.

5.

In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v.

Subhas Sharma, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 145, the issue

before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether a person serving

in Kendriya Vidyalaya, which is notified under Administrative

2

Tribunals Act can directly approach High Court bypassing the

tribunal constituted under the said Act. Relevant extract of

the said judgment is reproduced below:-

“10. Kendriya Vidyalaya is an autonomous body

registered

under

the

Societies

Registration

Act

and

controlled by the Government of India and that being the

position,

the

Administrative

Tribunal

has

jurisdiction

concerning service matters of the employees of Kendriya

Vidyalaya in view of sub-clause (iii) of Section 14(1)(b). In

this connection, the learned Additional Solicitor-General has

also drawn our attention to the notification of the

Government of India dated 17-12-1998 issued under sub-

section (2) of Section 14 of the Act by which the Central

Government specified that the Act shall apply to the

organisations mentioned in the sch