HC: Tribunals not allowed to foray into Jurisdictions beyond their purview

 

Reprimanding the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that it is not permissible for Tribunals to venture into foreign territory beyond their jurisdictional purview.

The division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav has in that view ruled in favour of petitioner in the present case, who challenged two orders passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application on merits and on ground of limitation.

The CAT had reasoned that the Caste Certificate furnished by him was not in prescribed proforma and that he in fact belongs to OBC category. Aggrieved, he approached the Allahabad Bench of CAT against the order, which inturn dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction on merits. He then preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court against the order passed by the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

In a fresh application filed before the Jabalpur Bench of CAT for the same grievance, dismissal was done questioning of territorial jurisdiction. The matter then reached Supreme Court which quashed the findings rendered on merits by CAT Allahabad and Allahabad High Court, and directed revival of his original application. In view of the decision, he moved an application before the Allahabad Bench of CAT for the same grievance, which ended up transferring the same to its Jabalpur Bench which then dismissed the application and subsequent review application against the same order of dismissal on merits and ground of limitation.

All this led to eventual filiing of present writ petition before the High Court.

Learned Counsel for petitioner primarily contended that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to see that cancellation of candidature was done exclusively on two grounds:-(i) The caste certificate submitted alongwith the application by petitioner was not in the prescribed format. (ii) The petitioner belongs to other backward category, and therefore his claim to be appointed against a vacancy reserved for SC is untenable. 

He argued that as far as the first ground is concerned, if the Caste Certificate was not in proper format, he ought to have been afforded an opportunity to submit an appropriate caste certificate which could've very well been done after the last date of submission of application forms making referrence to Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & ANR., 2016 Latest Caselaw 184 SC

He further submitted that as regard to the second ground of petitioner being an OBC candidate and not an SC is concerned, the employer had no occasion or jurisdiction to dwell upon this issue as it lies within the exclusive domain of High Power Committee constituted under the executive instructions issued pursuant to the decision of Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, 1994 Latest Caselaw 439 SC

Read also : Once submitted, Students can't change Registration Form details like Domicile Status, rules HC, Read Order

Learned counsel for the employer on the other hand submitted that claim of petitioner was not only delayed by almost 7 years; but also was considered and decided on merits, and therefore in the limited writ and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution, no interference is called for.

High Court Observation

The Court after listening to rival parties and having perused the factual matrix involved arrived at the conclusion:

Read also : Madhya Pradesh High Court got 6 new Judges
i) The Tribunal failed to consider the applicability of decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), wherein it was laid down that credentials regarding status of caste can very well be furnished even after elapse of the last date for submission of application forms.
ii) If non-submission of the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma alone was the deficiency in the candidature of petitioner then employer ought to have afforded opportunity to petitioner to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma. Not having done so, the employer deprived the petitioner of his legitimate right of furnishing certificate regarding caste status even after expiry of last date of submission of application forms pursuant to the advertisement.
iii) The decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & ANR., 2016 Latest Caselaw 184 SC has been challenged and referred to a larger bench in Karn Singh Yadav Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. but unless any verdict comes, the law, as it exists today, as propounded in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) will have to be followed.
iv) If after giving opportunity to petitioner to produce the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma, the employee would have produced a certificate which did not declare him to be a member of SC category, then the employer was free to proceed in accordance with law
v) The employer as well as the Tribunal further erred in holding that the petitioner is an OBC candidate and not SC candidate thereby trespassing into the foreign territory of deciding the caste status of the petitioner, which is exclusively reserved for competent authority or the High Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra).
vi) The Tribunal further erred in holding in the same breath that the claim is barred by limitation and the same being untenable on merits. It is trite law that if the claim before the adjudicating authority is barred by limitation then the Court/Tribunal ought not to enter into merits of the matter.
vii) The belated pronouncement of the impugned order by Tribunal cannot further be countenanced in law. The need and purpose of delivering judgment at the earliest is statutorily prescribed not only in the CPC, but also in the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993.

The Court shed light on the fact that recently, the Apex Court has come down heavily upon the Courts/Tribunal on noticing the growing tendency of keeping the cases reserved for a long period of time after finally hearing them. The aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 Latest Caselaw 367 SC has been subsequently followed recently in Balaji Baliram Mupade and another VS. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 Latest Caselaw 580 SC

In view of the above, the Court opined that the Tribunal committed grave error of law in holding that O.A. No.1140/2017 was time barred. The facts available on record are palpable to demonstrate that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the remedy available to him in law right from arising of cause of action since 25.06.2010 when his candidature was rejected.

"More so, the Tribunal fell in grave error in trespassing into the foreign territory while rendering a finding on caste status of petitioner by holding the petitioner to belong to OBC community. Venturing into this foreign territory vitiates the impugned orders."

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure