HARJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition has been preferred for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated December 22, 2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench in OA nos. 466/03 and 794/03, and also writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold and maintain that the petitioners were promoted as ASWs vide orders dated June 11, 2001 as per un -amended recruitment rules issued vide SRO 39 dated January 16, 1985 on regular vacancies in implementation of the judgments of this Court borne on the cadre strength of the posts of ASW available for the years 1992 -93 and 1993 -94.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable since the order was passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench and that if the petitioners are aggrieved of the order of CAT, Eranakulam, they have to challenge the same before the High Court of Kerala and not before this Court. Learned counsel also submitted that, in fact, the order in question was also challenged before the High Court of Kerala at Eranakulam in WP (C) no. 191 of 2006(S) and other connected matters in which petitioners herein and some others were parties and these petitions were dismissed. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.

(3.) WE are inclined to uphold the preliminary objections stating that this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench. Paragraph 99 of the above mentioned judgment clearly says that the Tribunals created under Article 323 -A and Article 323 -B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. Law is, therefore, is well settled that if the petitioners have any grievance against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench, they have to challenge that order before the High Court at Eranakulam, not before this Court.