TARA NATH PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the Union of India (review applicants), and Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

(2.) The writ petition was filed questioning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainital in O.A. no. 331 / 00041 of 2014 dtd. 14/9/2015. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, by its order dtd. 14/9/2015, dismissed the O.A. on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While holding that the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken a hyper-technical view in rejecting the case of the petitioner merely on the ground of limitation, and in holding that the delay was due to the poverty of the petitioner and ill advice rendered to him by his counsel, the Division Bench also held that the petitioner has been continuously working from 1/1/1990 till 13/10/2008; workmen, junior to the petitioner, had been retained, while the service of the petitioner had been terminated; and it was a fit case where the principle of 'Last Come, First Go' should be applied. The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal was quashed, the order dtd. 14/10/2008, terminating the services of the petitioner, was declared void ab initio, and the petitioner was held entitled to continue in service, along with all consequential benefits including back wages. The Division Bench further directed that, considering the length of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1/1/1990 to 13/10/2008, the petitioner was entitled for regularization.

(3.) The scope of interference in certiorari proceedings is extremely limited. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction such as in cases where the order is passed without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction or where, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence, and the inference of fact to be drawn therefrom, cannot be agitated in certiorari proceedings (Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others : AIR 1964 SC 1344) as it is in the province of a court of appeal.