Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
INDERMANI KIRTIPAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1567 1996 SCC (2) 437
JT 1996 (2) 646 1996 SCALE (2)274
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The petitioner has raised a jurisdictional issue. The
learned single Member of the Tribunal has dismissed the
petitioner’s application in O.A. No.648/92 by order dated
May 11, 1993. Learned counsel Shri D.K. Garg relies upon
Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for
short, the ’Act’) to contend that the single Member had no
jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to promotion of
the petitioner. His case is that he joined the Department as
a seri-skilled Horkman and was later on appointed as Asstt.
Store Keeper against OEP vacancy in Dehradun. When juniors
and also seniors to him were promoted in OEP Section, he was
singled out violating his right for consideration for
appointment to the higher post in OEP Section. The case of
the respondents is that he was in Maintenance Section,
though at the initial stage when OEP Section was a cell he
had worked therein. Therefore, he was not eligible to be
considered. All others were transferred along with the posts
to the Ordnance factory while he remained in Maintenance
Section. As a consequence, they formed a class, the
petitioner being a class apart.
The question, therefore, is whether the learned single
Member of the Tribunal was competent to decide the matter.
We are of the view that the member had the jurisdiction to
decide the matter for the reason that it is not a case of
initial lack of jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the Vice-Chairman
of the Tribunal by operation of sub-Section (1) of Section 5
has been empowered to classify classes of cases and make
sitting arrangements of benches for convenient disposal of
cases; and he had ordered accordingly. Sub-Section (2)
enumerates various categories of cases which the members
would be competent to dispose of. When its member would
dispose of which matter is one of administrative
convenience; it does not relate to his jurisdiction. Even
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
under Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code objections
relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdictional should
be raised at the earliest and if the parties omit to plead
and raise the objection, at a later stage, unsuccessful
party would be precluded to raise lack of jurisdiction.
Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench
consisting of a single member may also be competent to
dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided
by him after considering the case on merits, it is no longer
open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had
no jurisdiction to decide the issue or that the order
suffers from initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case
of improper disposal of the matter without touching the
jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter.
Under these circumstances, we do not think there is any
lack of jurisdiction warranting interference. The petition
is accordingly dismissed.