JITENDER SINGH AULAKH Vs. ARUN KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A fierce battle waged between the parties in these three writ petitions relate to the choice of forum that should hear three OAs filed by them. As noted in detail hereinafter, one OA is filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereas other two OAs are filed in the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Whereas the applicants in OAs pending in the Chandigarh Bench of the CAT want transfer of OA filed before the Principal Bench, New Delhi to Chandigarh Bench, the applicant of OA in Principal Bench, New Delhi wishes otherwise. All of them filed transfer petitions under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunal Act (in short the 'Act') for this purpose. The Vice -Chairman has passed orders transferring the OAs pending in Chandigarh Bench to Delhi. Essentially this is the order under challenge before us in WP(C) No. 4459/2008 and WP(C) No. 4464/2008. In the third petition a related issue is raised. With this background explaining the controversy between the parties in nutshell, we proceed to discuss the factual matrix in little detail so that issues are understood and appreciated in their proper perspective. To avoid confusion, we shall refer to the parties as they appear in WP(C) No. 4459/2008.

(2.) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are the Punjab Police Service Officers (PPS) serving in the State of Punjab who are directly recruited to the post of DSP through the Punjab Police Service Commission. Respondent No. 4 is serving Punjab Police in the capacity of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). Before joining PPS he worked for some period in the Indian Army. He is aspirant for induction into the Indian Police Service. In order to fulfill the eligibility condition relating to length of service in the State Police Service, the respondent No. 4 wants that the service rendered by him in the Army should be taken into consideration and on that basis he should be brought in the select list for IPS. He had earlier filed OA No. 1055 -PB of 1996 before the Chandigarh Bench which had been rejected by the said Bench. It, however, appears that he had made certain representations to the Government of Punjab seeking to grant him the deemed date of seniority. The Government of Punjab recommended his case for convening of Review Selection Committee for the select list of 1995 -96 vide letter dated 8.10.2007 granting him deemed date of seniority after including the service rendered by him in the Indian Army. This letter was addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs for onward transmission to the UPSC for convening of the Review Selection Committee. The Ministry forwarded the said request to the UPSC vide covering letter dated 8/13th November, 2007 for examining the said request in view of existing Regulations. The UPSC considered the same and rejected the claim of the respondent No. 4 vide its communication dated 28.11.2007 on the ground that there was no Regulation under which the UPSC could suo moto convene a Review Selection Committee meeting.

(3.) THE petitioners, on the other hand, filed two OAs, namely, OA No. 235/PB/2008 titled as Jatinder Singh Aulakh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and OA No. 236/PB/2008 titled as Arun Kumar Mittal and Anr. v. Union of India. In these two OAs the petitioners have challenged the decision dated 8.10.2007 of the State of Punjab recommending deemed date of seniority to the respondent No. 4. In the said two OAs, Chandigarh Bench has also passed interim orders which have the effect of staying the recommendation of the Government of Punjab in favour of the respondent No. 4. They did not want that case of the respondent No. 4 be reconsidered by convening Review Selection Committee, as according to them that would affect their prospects. They are, thus, supporting the stand taken by the UPSC in its decision dated 28.11.2007.