AJEET SINGH SINGHVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question is as to whether in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985 (for short, the Act) this writ petition should be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) under Section 29 of the Act as this Court ceased to have jurisdiction ?

(2.) THE petitioner, Ajeet Singh Singhvi, though a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service, claims to have acquired a right to be treated as a substantive member of the Indian Administrative Service)(Senior Scale) (for short, IAS) with effect from March 8, 1984 on the ground that he was selected by the selection committee for promotion to the IAS in its meeting held on December 22, 1980, and the Union Public Service Commission conveyed its approval of the select list on April 3, 1981. In pursuance of the select list of 1981 the petitioner was promoted to IAS by an order of the respondent No. 3 dated March 3, 1984, Annx. 2. But no order under Regulation 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, the Regulations) has been issued. The petitioner seeks a direction that the Union of India, respondent No. 1, be directed to issue order under Regulation 9 of the Regulations with effect from March 8, 1984 in favour of the petitioner and others selected by the respondent No. 2, Union Public Service Commission, and the respondents be restrained from changing the position of the petitioner in the cadre of IAS.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the present case cannot be transferred under Section 29 of the Act to the Tribunal because in the present proceedings no order of the Central Government or any other authority has been challenged and under Section 19 of the Act a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance, and because no order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is under challenge in the present proceedings, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, the present proceedings cannot be transferred because in the present proceedings the petitioner has sought a declaration. He further contends that pre -recruitment matters to the lAS are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and only matters which are post -recruitment, lie within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Article 323A of the Constitution of India stipulates that the Parliament may by law, provide for adjudication or trial by the Administrative Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government. Therefore, the law under Article 323A of the Constitution of India can be made by the Parliament providing for adjudication or trial by the Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and the word 'recruitment' will indicate the post recruitment matters. It cannot be said that so for pre -recruitment matters to the public services and post in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State are concerned, an authority other than the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction, so far as the post recruitment matters are concerned, the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction. A look at the preamble of the Act will show that it has been enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State.