SALEEM Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am of the opinion that this Original Petition under art. 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The question raited relates to recruitment of Sepoys in the Central Excise Department. The petitioner was an aspirant for selection. He underwent the physical test successfully. He was also interviewed. But he was not selected, according to him wrongfully and for extraneous reasons. Therefore he seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Sepoy.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of this court is excluded by S 28 of the Administrative tribunals Act, 13 of 1985 (the Act) read with Art. 323a (2) (d) of the constitution of India. He points out that the Original Petition relates to recruitment to the Civil service of the Unio n , which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative tribunal under S. 14 of the Act, the relevant clause of which reads: " (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;"

(3.) EVEN otherwise, I am not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention regarding the scope of the preamble itself. The raison d'etre for the introduction of Art. 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution by the constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976 and the enactment of the administrative Tribunals Act, following it, are explained by Ranganath Misra J. in Para. 15 and 16 of his judgment in Sampath Kumar v. Union of India 1987 (1)SCC. 124. The Constitution Amendment was the culmination of the debates and deliberations, spread over almost two decades, for exploring ways and means, for relieving the High Courts of the load of backlog of cases and for assuring quick settlement of service disputes in the interests of public servants as also the country. The Tribunal was contemplated as a substitute to take over a part of the existing backlog, and a share of the normal load, of the High courts, and not as supplemental to the High Courts in the scheme of administration of justice. Expeditious disposal of service matters and relief to the High Court by appointing a substitute forum for adjudication of such disputes were the twin purposes of the Constitution Amendment and the subsequent Act. If this be the scheme of the legislation, the purpose will stand defeated by limiting the operation of the Act to existing employees alone.