Full Judgment Text
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of Decision: 31 January, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 1207/2020 & CM APPL. No. 4037/2020
SHIKSHA DAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj,Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. D.S. Mahendroo, Senior
Panel Counsel for UOI with
Mr.Anshuman, Advocate
(Govt. Pleader)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 4037/2020 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1207/2020
1. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted.
2. Mr. D.S. Mahendroo, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Union
of India accepts notice.
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 1 of 7
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by two orders dated 17.01.2020 and
22.01.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal',
for short). In this case, the petitioner filed an OA before the Tribunal
seeking the following reliefs :
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may be pleased:
(i) To declare the action of respondents in
selecting R-6 for appointment to the post of Tax
Assistant as illegal and issue appropriate direction
to appoint the applicant as Tax Assistant with all
consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(ii) To declare the action of the respondents in
not finalizing the recruitment in Sports Category as
per the eligibility criteria mention in the
Circular/Advertisement (A-4) as illegal and direct
the respondents to prepare the select list for
appointment to various post i.e. Income Tax, Tax
Assistant etc. as per the performance / participation
of the candidates in National/ International and
other Competition as mentioned in Annexure A-4.
(iii) To direct the respondents to consider the
claim of the applicant for appointment to the post of
Tax Assistant or Inspector Income Tax as per her
performance / participation in the
National/International Competitions.
(iv) To allow the OA with cost.
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 2 of 7
(v) To pass any further orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
4. The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner, who is an
international level player, has been declined appointment to the post
of Tax Assistant/Inspector Income Tax, candidates who are only
university level players have been selected.
5. Mr. Bhardwaj submits that an objection was raised by the
Registry for non-compliance of Section 20 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act', for short). Mr. Bhardwaj submits that this
objection could not have been raised by the Registry. He relies on
Section 20 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which says
that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless the
Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has availed of all the remedies
available under the relevant service rules for redressal of grievances.
He submits however that this is not an absolute rule; and in an
appropriate case an application can be filed before the Tribunal
directly without exhausting a departmental remedy.
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in D.B.Gohil vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2010) 12
SCC 301.
"5. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (“the Act”, for short) provides that the
Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application
unless it is satisfied that the appellant had availed of
all the remedies available to him under the relevant
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 3 of 7
| service rules as to redressal of grievances. The use of | |
|---|---|
| words “Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an | |
| application unless it is satisfied that the applicant | |
| had availed of all the remedies available to him | |
| under the relevant service rules” in Section 20(1) of | |
| the Act makes it evident that in exceptional | |
| circumstances for reasons to be recorded the | |
| Tribunal can entertain applications filed without | |
| exhausting the remedy by way of appeal. |
| 6. The Tribunal referred to Section 20 of the Act and | |
| rightly held that the matter involved substantial and | |
| important point of law about the binding nature of | |
| CVC's advice. The Tribunal was better suited to | |
| consider that issue as the appellate authority would | |
| also feel bound by the directions of CVC. Therefore, | |
| it was one of the exceptional cases where the | |
| appellant could approach the Tribunal without | |
| exhausting a departmental remedy of appeal. The | |
| High Court ignored that aspect. We are of the view | |
| that the High Court ought not to have allowed the | |
| writ petition on this technical ground. The order of | |
| the High Court cannot be sustained." |
7. We find that the matter was listed before the Tribunal on
17.01.2020, when the Tribunal passed the following order :
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORDER SHEET
No. of adjournment : 1
COURT NO. : 3
17.01.2020
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 4 of 7
Dairy No. :-400/2020
SHIKSHA DAGAR
-V/S-
M/O FINANCE
ITEM NO:1
FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj
FOR RESPONDENTS(S) Adv. : None
| Notes of The Registry | Order of The Tribunal |
|---|---|
| Registry is directed to list the matter after the<br>removal of office objection.<br>(ARADHANA JOHRI) (S N TERDAL)<br>MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)<br>neetu |
8. On 22.01.2020, an M.A. No. 282/2020 was filed by the
petitioner, which met with the same fate. The order on the M.A. reads
as under :
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORDER SHEET
No. of adjournment : 1
COURT NO. : 3
22.01.2020
M.A./100/282/2020
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 5 of 7
SHIKSHA DAGAR
-V/S-
M/O FINANCE
ITEM NO:12
FOR APPLICANTS(S) Adv. : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj
FOR RESPONDENTS(S) Adv.: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen for R-1 to 6
| Notes of The Registry | Order of The Tribunal |
|---|---|
| MA No.282/2020 seeking overruling of the<br>office objection dismissed. Registry is<br>directed to post the matter after removal of<br>office objection.<br>(MOHD. JAMSHED) (S N TERDAL)<br>MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)<br>/anjali/ |
9. A bare reading of Section 20 (1) of the Act shows that there is
no absolute bar to the Tribunal entertaining an application
straightaway, without the applicant having first exhausted
administrative remedies for redressal of grievances. The use of the
word "ordinarily" in the provision makes this amply clear. This is
also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in D.B. Gohil
(supra) cited by the petitioner. Even otherwise, we are of the view
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 6 of 7
that Section 20 cannot be so applied as to deprive an applicant of his
legal rights and remedies, especially in case there is urgency for
approaching the Tribunal.
10. In this case, as Mr. Bhardwaj submits, once the posts are filled
and the appointment letters are issued, the petitioner may loose-out
on the relief sought; and at the very least it would lead to multiplicity
of proceedings.
11. Accordingly, the orders dated 17.01.2020 and 22.01.2020 of
the Tribunal are set aside. The matter be listed before the Tribunal for
hearing on merits.
12. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of
13. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master.
14.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
JANUARY 31, 2020
j
W.P.(C) 1207/2020 Page 7 of 7