[2010] 3 S.C.R. 572

RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. v.

HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2653-2654 of 2010)

MARCH 23, 2010

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

Jurisdiction - Service dispute - Application before CAT ·

- Appellants not impleaded therein - Writ petition challenging C the order of tribunal - lmpleadment of appellants by High Court - Held: Appellants approaching High Court for the first. time in respect of the disputes over which CAT has jurisdiction, is legally not sustainable - In service matters, High Court is not the court of first instance - On facts, despite o having knowledge of pendency of the proceedings before CAT, appellants could not have approached High Court at the first instance - Appellants also had alternative remedy of review before CAT - Impugned judgment was in violation of judgment in L. Chandra Kumar* which embody a rule of law E in view of Article 141 of Constitution - Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - r. 17 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Service Law.

Two original applications were filed before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the respondents.

F Appellants were not made parties therein. One

application was dismissed while the other was partly allowed. When the said Judgment was challenged before High Court by the respondents, appellants fi!ed impleadment application, which was allowed by High G Court High Court ultimately set aside the' judgment of

CAT. Hence the present appeals.

The question for consideration before the Court was whether the appellants could participate in the H 572

RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. v. HEMRAJ SINGH 573

CHAUHAN & ORS.

controversy in question at the stage when the matter was A before High Court and they were not parties before Central Administrative Tribunal.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The approach made to the High Court for 8

the first time by the appellants in respect of their service disputes over which Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT ) has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The High Court fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a court of first instance in respect of C their service disputes, for adjudication of which CAT has been constituted. [Para 15) [578-8-C] ..

2. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that they were not made parties in proceedings before the o Tribunal. But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was not averred by them that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Rather, from the! averments made in the impleadment petition, it appears that they were aware of E the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was therefore, open for them to approach the Tribunal with their grievances. Not having done so, they cannot approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by 'overlooking F the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The CAT also has the jurisdiction of Review u/r. 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy. [Para 16)

[578-D-F]

3. The principles laid down in the case of L. Chandra Kumar virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article

141 of the Constitution, the same is binding on the High Court. The High Court fell into an error by allowing the appellants to approach it in clear violation of the H

A Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar. (Para 18) (578-H; 579-A]

* L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 sec 261, followed.

4. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court by treating it as a court of first instance, their Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court is also incompetent and not maintainable. (Para 17) [578-G]

Case Law Reference:

(1997) 3 sec 261 followed.

Para 8

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2653-2654 of 201 o.

. . From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 19103- 04 ,<)f 2006 . . . .

. ·· .. V.N. Sheety, L.N. Rao, S.L. Misra, Shail Dwivedi, AAG, E .Ravindra Kumar, T.V. Ratnam, Naresh Kaushik, Kiran

 Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Binu Tamta,

.· Upendra Nath Misra, Nikhil Majithia, Anuvrat Shanria, Kapil

Misra, Shiva Kumar Sinha, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh and Sandeep Malik for the appearing parties.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in these appeals are Non-State Civil G Service Officers (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-SCS

Officers"). They filed an impleadment application in the Delhi High Court for being impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition No.19103-04 of 2006 filed by Hem raj Singh Chauhan and Others before the High Court whereupon the High Court by an H

order dated 23rd April 2008 allowed them to intervene and A further allowed them to make submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition. They were also given liberty to file affidavits.

3. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court, 8 these appellants filed affidavits. After the High Court passed its impugned judgment dated 14.11.08 they have filed these appeals assailing the said judgment.

4. At the outset of their arguments this Court wanted learned counsel for the appellants to satisfy this Court about C their locus to participate in the controversy at the stage when the matter was before the High Court in view of the fact that admittedly these appellants were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, 'C.A.T.').

5. Before the C.A.T. there were three applicants namely, Hemraj Singh Chauhan, Anwah11 Haque and Ram Nawal Singh who were common both in O.A. No.1097/06 and O.A. No.1137/

06. Apart from those three persons, Ramesh Chandani and K.K. Shukla were also applicants in O.A. No. 1137/06. Both E the original applications were heard together.

6. The C.A.T. in its judgment dated 15.12.2006 held that O.A. No.1097/06 was without merit and dismissed the same and O.A. No.1137/06 was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to convene the meeting of D.P.C. Selection F Committee to fill-up the posts which ultimately remain unfulfilled in 2001, 2002 and 2004 and to consider all eligible SCS Officers in the zone of consideration in the respective years including the Officers who were put in the select list of those years but could not be appointed in the absence of integrity G certificate. The C.A.T. directed that the said order be complied within the period of four months.

7 .. However, on the said judgment being challenged before the High Court by Hemraj Singh Chauhan, the High Court set H

A aside lhe judgment of the C.A.T. and the Central Government

 and the State Government wre directed to undertake the cadre reviewing exercise with refernce to the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004 in the manner indicated in the High Court judgment within eight weeks from date.

8. However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others - (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placitum f & g of C the report and contended that in view of th~ law declared in Chandra Kumar (supra), they can come before the/High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of C.A.T. as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said D judgment was rendered.

9. This Court is of the view that the understanding of the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is not correct and the ratio in Chandra E Kumar (supra) is just to the contrary.

10. The Constitution Bench in Chandra Kumar (supra) . held that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 32 of the Gonstitution is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution (See paragraphs 78 & 79, pages 301 and 302 of the report). The Constitution Bench also held that various Tribunals created urider Articles 323-A and 323-B of the . .

Constitution, will function as Court of first instance and are subject to the power of judicial review of the High Court under G Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Constitution

Bench also held that these Tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statl.itory legislation, except the vires of the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal.

11. In paragraph 93, at page 309 of the report, the A Constitution Bench specifically held:

" ... We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted .... " B

(Emphasis added)

12. The Constitution Bench explained the said statement of law by reiterating in the next sentence: c " .. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the

particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the 0 jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.

13. On a prope'r reading of these two sentences, it is clear:

(a) The Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have E been constituted.

(b) Even where any challenge is made to the Vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be F able to directly approach the High Court 'overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'.

14. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench in the penultimate paragraph 99 at page 311 of the report in the following words: G

" ... The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even H

A in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned .... " ·

15. In view of such repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which C.A.r. has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench. of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing C the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance .

in respect of their service disputes, for adjudication bf which C.A.T. has been constituted.

16. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that D they were not made parties in proceedings before the Tribunal.

But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was not averred by them that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Rather from . the averrnents made in the impleadment petition it appears that .

E they were aware of the pendency of the proceedings. before the . ·

Tribunal. It was therefore, open for them to approach the Tribunal with their grievances. Not having done so, they cannot, in view of the clear law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar(supra), approach the High Court F and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by 'overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The C.A.T. also has the jurisdiction of Review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy.

17. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court by treating it as a Court of first instance, their Special Leave Petition before this Court is also incompetent and not maintainable.

18. The principles laid down in the case of Chandra Kumar

(supra) virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 A of the Constitution the same is binding on the High Court. The High Court fell into an error by allowing the appellants to approach it in clear violation of the Constitution Bench judgment

1 of this Court in Chandra Kumar (supra).

19. For the reasons aforesaid the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

K.K.T.

Appeals dismissed .