CHAIRMAN RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. S RUBAN PETER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short, but meaningful, question which we are called upon to decide at this stage, is regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to deal 'service matters' after the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act, for short) with effect from 1st November, 1985 and in particular as to 'who' are the persons who are required to approach only the 'tribunal' for the adjudication of disputes concerning their services and to whom the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is no longer available for the adjudication of those disputes. The question arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court, which are still pending adjudication, seeking the issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 15th April, 1989 written by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and a command to the Board to publish the list of candidates in order of merit obtained by them through the process of selection. It appears from the writ petition that about 1,86,000 candidates applied Equivalent Citation for appointment to non-technical popular categories pursuant to advertisement notice No. 1 of 1987 issued by the Board. There was preliminary scrutiny of applications and about 1,80,000 candidates were called for the written examination. 1,44,000 candidates appeared for the written examination on 15th November, 1987 in 397 centers in 27 different cities/towns. On the basis of a news item appearing in 'the Indian Express' dated 16th November, 1987 alleging that there had been leakage of the question paper, a complaint was lodged by the Assistant Secretary of Board to the police which led to some investigation being carried out but with no results. Subsequently, on 7th September, 1988, the Board published the results of the written examination. Later on, candidates numbering two and half times the number of estimated vacancies were called for interview by individual intimations. The Committee which interviewed candidates on various dates at different places found that nearly half of the candidates, who had secured very high marks in the written examination, could secure very poor and even one digit marks, in certain cases, in the interview. Some of the candidates gave answers to the same questions wrongly than what they had given in the written examination. This, in a way, confirmed the apprehension about the leakage of the question papers. Out of 1946 eligible candidates for interview, the Board considered and decided to select the best from among them by holding a second written examination which, in the opinion of the Board, had become imperative in view of the circumstances of the case. As a consequence, the Board issued the impugned letter dated 15th April, 1989 calling the candidates for a second written examination. This letter has been questioned through writ petitions on various grounds detailed therein. The writ petitions were admitted and certain ex-parte interim directions were issued. The Board thereupon filed vacate-stay petitions. The main contention urged on behalf of the Board before the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act since in all matters concerning 'service' the High Court had been divested of its jurisdiction and such 'disputes' could only be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, set up under the Act. This contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge who held that even though the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act with reference to the matters stated therein, the matters involved in the writ petitions, which arose at the 'pre-recruitment stage', fell outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the High Court had the jurisdiction to Equivalent Citation go into the questions raised in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the appellant Board has filed these appeals and the only questions we are called upon to decide at this stage is the one noticed by us above.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the precise question and the contentions raised at the Bar, it is desirable to take a note of the historical background under which the Act was passed and the Central Administrative Tribunal established.