All Matters Falling U/S 14 Of AT Act Must Be Agitated First Before Administrative Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that all the matters which fall within the purview of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (AT Act) must first be agitated before the Tribunal and that the litigant can only approach the High Court when challenging the vires of the AT Act.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the aggrieved candidates who instead of approaching the Tribunal, approached the High Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain enunciated, "... the position in law is clear as crystal. All matters, which fall within the purview of Section 14 of the AT Act have first to be agitated before the Tribunal. It is the Tribunal alone which can entertain these matters, as a court of first instance. The litigant is completely proscribed from approaching the High Court in such matters, without first approaching the Tribunal. The only circumstance in which the litigant can approach the High Court, without first approaching the Tribunal, is where the litigation challenges the vires of the AT Act itself, or of one or the other of its provisions."
Advocate Anushree Kapadia represented the appellants while SPC Piyush Beriwal represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The appellants were candidates who undertook an examination for recruitment to the posts of Examiner of Patents & Designs Group A (Gazetted), in the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM), Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The examination was initiated by the office of the CGPDTM, and conducting of the examination was assigned to the National Testing Agency (NTA). The NTA conducted the Preliminary Examination in December 2023 and Paper 1 and Paper 2 of the Mains Examination in January 2024. Certain students, who would not undertake the Main Examination, were permitted to re-attempt the Main Examination in February 2024.
It was contended by the counsel for the appellants that such an additional opportunity granted to certain students was illegal as they were “privately invited” to undertake the examination. Be that as it may, the results of the Mains Examination were announced in March 2024. Offline interviews were conducted between in April 2024 and the final score card of the candidates was released by the NTA by a Public Notice in June 2024. The petitioners, therefore, instituted a writ petition before the High Court, alleging that there were certain irregularities in the process of the examination conducted by the NTA. As the Single Judge dismissed their petition, the petitioners were before the Division Bench.
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is a matter of some discomfiture to this Court that, nearly three decades after seven Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court clearly held, in the near-iconic decision in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI, that all matters which lay within the province of the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of Section 143 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19854 would have to be agitated before the Tribunal and that the High Court could not act as a court of first instance in such cases, petition after petition is still preferred in the High Court, in clear violation of the judgment.”
The Court noted that, this is yet one other such case, in which the appellants have sought to avoid approaching the Tribunal and have petitioned the Court, in a matter which clearly falls within Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (AT Act).
“The final segment of the impugned judgment again addresses the appellants’ contention that they are not employees of any Government Department. The learned Single Judge has, in this context, noted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar in para 99 has specifically observed that it would not be open to litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where the vires of statutory legislations was under challenge", it remarked.
The Court further noted that the Single Judge held that, as Section 14 of the AT Act also covers challenges to recruitment and the matters relating to recruitment to civil posts under the Union, it would also cover the cases where the person is seeking employment to a civil post and is not yet an employee.
“Instead of approaching the Tribunal, as they could, and should, have, the appellants have sought to appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. Of course, they are certainly entitled to appeal; but, in the process, the chance of, perhaps, obtaining relief from the right forum, is frittered away”, it added.
The Court said that under Article 323-A(1) of the Constitution, the words “appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union”, would ordinarily apply only to persons who have already been appointed.
“The lis forming subject matter of the writ petition instituted by the petitioners before this Court would unquestionably fall within the peripheries of the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, as so understood”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Cause Title- Parikshit Grewal & Ors. v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7692-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Anushree Kapadia, M. Thirupathi Reddy, and Ekta Kundu.
Respondents: SPC Piyush Beriwal, GP Jitender Kumar Tripathi, Advocates Ojashi, Pankhuri Shrivastava, and Atreya G.C.
