SAMIR KUMAR NANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Associate Professor of Forensic and State Medicine in National Institute of Homoeopathy, Salt Lake, Kolkata (the respondent no.7) has filed this writ petition to challenge the office order dated February 11, 2019 issued by the respondent no. 8 (the Director-in-Charge of the respondent no.7) transferring him to the North-Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homoeopathy, Shillong, Meghalaya.

(2.) At the very outset, a strong objection was raised on behalf of the respondent Union of India as well as the respondent nos. 7 and 8 with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court. It was contended that by virtue of the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short "the Act of 1985") and establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's remedy to challenge the impugned order of transfer lies in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata and this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. It was submitted that the respondent no.7 is an autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act and controlled by the Government of India, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition before this Court. Buttressing the point that the Central Administrative Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge by the petitioner of his order of transfer to the North-Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homoeopathy at Shillong Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 referred to Section 14(1) (b) (iii) of the Act of 1985. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are extracted below: "14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to-

(3.) Mr. Majumdar further drew the attention of this Court to Item Number 115 of Appendix VI under Rule 154(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules Of Practice, 1993 providing for department wise classification cases, including the cases relating to the respondent no.7. Thus, it was reiterated that the service disputes raised by the petitioner would come under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. -Vs- Subhas Sharma reported in (2002) 4 SCC 145 as well as the Division Bench decision dated June 23, 2011 passed in W.P.C.T. No. 351 of 2007 (Debashish Debnath -vs-Union of India and Ors.) and W.P.CT. No. 93 of 2011 (Goutam Kumar Sahoo -vs- Union of India and Ors.).