<. ..:r. < * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #44 + W.P.(C) 6052/2011 MAMTA CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anshum Jain, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajive Mehra, Sr. Adv With Mr.Asit Tiwari, Advocate #52 For Respts No.1 and 2. + W.P.(C) 6071/2011 NAMRATA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anshum Jain, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajive Mehra, Sr. Adv With Mr.Asit Tiwari, Advocate For Respts No.1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER 0/o 23.08.2011 CM No. 12233/2011 in WP(C) No.6052/2011 CM No.12251!2011 in WP(C) No.6071/2011 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. I Signing Date:06.09.2024 17:17:58 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified WP(C) No.6052/2011 and CM No.12232/2011 WP(C) No.6071/2011 and CM No.12250/2011 In these two writ petitions, the common order passed on 14.07.2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the tribunal') in O.A. Nos. 2384/2011 and 2387/2011 is under challenge whereby the tribunal has opined that it has no jurisdiction. The grievance agitated relates to recruitment for the post of Sub- Inspector (female) in CISF. The tribunal by the impugned decision has held that in view of Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act'), it does not have jurisdiction to decide the lis. It is worth noting, the petitioners had approached this Court in WP(C) Nos.3264/2010 and 4040/2010. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petitions on 31.5.2011 had passed the following order: "1. The counsels for the respondent state that the subject matter of these petitions is within the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and these writ petitions ought not to be entertained. Reference is made to order dated 2nd February, 2011 in W.P.(C) 2536/2010 where in similar circumstances, the writ petitions were withdrawn with liberty to approach CAT. 2. The counsel for the petitioners also does not controvert the aforesaid position. He however states that he be permitted to expressly withdraw the prayer made in W.P.(C) 3264/2010 qua is. Suman Dagar. He is allowed to do so. Prayer (C) in W.P.(C) 3264/2010 is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Otherwise also the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the CAT. It is further directed that the time spent by the petitioners before this Court shall be excluded from the period of limitation specified · under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provided the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within five weeks of today. No order as to costs." Z. As the said order was passed on concession, it is needless to emphasize that the tribunal could have adverted to the question under law, whether it has jurisdiction or not. It is submitted by Mr.Anshum Jain that the petitioners having obtained higher marks were entitled to be recruited to the post of Sub- Inspector (Female) in the CISF organization. Mr.Rajive Mehra, learned senior counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, contend that the petitioners had not mentioned anything with regard to the recruitment in CISF. Be that as it may, the Court has to address the question and facet of jurisdiction regard being had to the claim and averments made in the original application. The claim squarely comes within the ambit and sweep of Section 2(a) of the Act. The post of Sub-Inspector under CISF is a part of para military force or any other Armed Force and, therefore, any claim for appointment to the said post has to be before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our considered opinion, the tribunal has rightly expressed the view that it has no jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, we affirm the order passed by the tribunal and grant liberty to the petitioners to file a writ petition before this Court. Needless to say, the said writ petition shall be adverted to and dwelled upon on merits and should not be. thrown over board on the ground of delay and laches. As the interim order has been continuing, the same shall remain in force for a period of four weeks from today. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of without any order as to costs. A copy of order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. AUGUST 23, 2011 sv CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J