CWP No. 22636 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22636 of 2010 Date of Decision : 20.12.2010 Jaswinder Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus Union of India & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. **** M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition for quashing order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') particularly on the ground that it goes against a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 6728 of 2007. One of the petitioners namely Sh. Vijender Kumar was party to the writ petition No. 6728 of 2007, which was decided on 5.9.2009. It is conceded position that against the aforesaid judgment the Special Leave Petition has been granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, and hearing has been expedited by dispensing with the printing. However, there is no interim order of stay. Some other Officers, who have conflicting claim CWP No. 22636 of 2010 -2- to that of the petitioners filed Original Application No. 399 of 2001 before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has issued directions on 28.9.2010 that on account of pendency of appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Departmental Promotion Committee is restrained from filling up the posts of Superintendent Grade-I pertaining to the years 1996-1999, and to keep them in abeyance till the date Hon'ble the Supreme Court decides the Appeal No. 29192 of 2009 in which leave has been granted on 4.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Tribunal at Mumbai, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the aforesaid direction, as also issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to implement the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 6728 of 2007 decided on 5.9.2009. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Tribunal at Mumbai could not have issued any mandatory injunction against the judgment of this Court especially when Hon'ble the Supreme Court while granting special leave has not preferred to stay direction issued by this Court. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal at Mumbai should have allowed the Departmental Promotion Committee to function in respect of filling up vacancies for the year 1996-1999. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shreedharan Kallat vs. Union of India and Others (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 207 and argued that Tribunal has no business to comment CWP No. 22636 of 2010 -3- upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal at Mumbai is situated within the supervision and superintending jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners have to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law before that High Court or in the alternative before Hon'ble the Supreme Court because Sh. Vijender Kumar-petitioner No.2, who is party in the Civil Appeal pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, could an appropriate application there seeking direction in that regard. This Court has neither territorial nor supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal at Mumbai, although, it may be true that the Tribunal at Mumbai has acted with impropriety. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 20.12.2010 'sp'