UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHEERAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 13th September, 2007 (P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (J&K Circuit) Chandigarh Bench at Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). At the outset, it may be noticed that earlier on 9th July, 2004 a difference of opinion had emerged between the Judicial and Administrative Members of the Tribunal. Accordingly, under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Competent Authority had placed the matter before the Vice-Chairman being 3rd member, It is the Vice Chairman who has passed the impugned order, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) In nutshell, the private respondent Dheeraj Gupta has raised the dispute with regard to his allocation as I.A.S. Officer to Jammu and Kashmir cadre. He has claimed Haryana cadre as 'insider' candidate on the basis of merit list prepared for the Civil Services Examination, 1992. He was at Sr. No. 12 in the All India Merit List and was topper in the State of Haryana, which is his home State. Therefore, he claimed allocation to Haryana cadre as 'insider' or in the alternative to Himachal Pradesh. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that he is entitled for allocation to Haryana cadre. His allocation to Jammu and Kashmir has been set aside. He has also been held entitled to his original seniority in All India Merit List, even after allocation to Haryana because he was wrongly allocated to Jammu and Kashmir cadre.

(3.) Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Dheeraj Gupta has raised a serious preliminary objection at the outset urging that this High Court does not enjoy territorial jurisdiction over this matter. According to the learned counsel, private respondent-Dheeraj Gupta has filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, and he later on, got it transferred to Jammu and Kashmir Bench. He has emphasised that the private respondent Dheeraj Gupta has been admittedly allocated to Jammu and Kashmir cadre and merely because the Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh has exercised jurisdiction over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Punjab and Haryana High Court would not ipso facto, acquire territorial jurisdiction especially when there is High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which could exercise jurisdiction. He has drawn our attention to the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kusum Ingots and Allovs Ltd. versus Union of India, 2004 6 SCC 254 and submitted that even if a small part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. Relying on the observations made in para 30 of the judgment, Mr. D.V. Sharma has submitted that in appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of 'forum conveniens.'