SATYA NARAIN TIWARI Vs. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had responded to the advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training, Allahabad for recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF'), Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF'), Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRPF') and Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSB'). The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board but a Memorandum dated 6th August, 2011 was issued declaring the petitioner as unfit due to squint in the left eye and mild degeneration. The petitioner was also informed that he could prefer an appeal against the findings of the medical examination by 22nd August, 2011. It is stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal but it has not been decided. This petition has, accordingly, been filed for quashing the Memorandum issued on 6th August, 2011 and for a direction upon the respondents to supply a copy of the appellate order. When the petition was taken up, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri S.K. Rai and Miss. Shikha Dixit that the Court should decline to entertain this petition as the petitioner can file an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the remedy of filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal is not available to the petitioner. In this connection he has placed before the Court the provisions of Sections 2 and 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Act'). He has also placed before the Court the provisions of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRPF Act'), the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF Act'), the provisions of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSF Act') and the provisions of The Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSB Act').

(3.) Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his preliminary objection, submitted that the dispute in the present petition relates to recruitment in the four armed forces and, therefore, the aid of Section 2 of the Tribunal Act, which provides that the provisions of the Tribunal Act shall not apply to any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union, cannot be taken by the petitioner. It is also his submission that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any application since the matter concerns recruitment to All India Service as contemplated under Section 14(1)(a) of the Tribunal Act. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, 1997 3 SCC 261, the judgments of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14859 of 2010 (Prem Chand Yadav v. Union Public Service Commission Thru' Its Secy.) decided on 23rd March, 2010, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7322 of 2012 (Avadhesh Singh v. Union of India Thru Secy. Ministry of Personnel and others) decided on 8th February, 2012, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37682 of 2011 (Makar Dhwaj Yadav v. Govt. of India, Thru. Secy. S.S.C., New Delhi and others) decided on 12th July, 2011, Bhagwan Ram v. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad and another, 1999 3 AWC 2693and D.N. Roy v. Union of India and others,2008 2 ESC 1007.