Writ Petition (MD) No. 12036 of 2014 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014. Case: G.V. Vairam Santhosh Vs State of Tamil Nadu. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition (MD) No. 12036 of 2014 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J. Pooventhera Rajan, Adv. and For Respondents: V.R. Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader |
| Judges | S. Manikumar and V. S. Ravi, JJ. |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 14, 15, 19, 3(b), 3(q), 5(4); Constitution of India - Articles 141, 226, 227, 323, 323A |
| Judgement Date | August 26, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
S. Manikumar, J.
1. A practicing advocate, has sought for a Writ of Declaration, declaring Sub-Paragraph (1-G) of Paragraph-II in Part-A of Schedule-VII, to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, as ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
2. Sub Paragraph (1-G) of Paragraph " II in Part " A of the aforesaid Schedule " VII, to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, reads as follows:-
(1-G) If the disciplinary proceedings under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules pending against a member of service are merely stayed by a Court, his case shall be deferred till the judicial proceedings are concluded unless a contrary order is passed by the Court and it is decided not to challenge the same. If the Court quashes the charge memo then the name of the member of service shall be considered for inclusion in the approved list for promotion or appointment, if he is otherwise qualified.
3. By inviting the attention of this Court to rule 39(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when discretion is conferred on the appointing authority, to make temporary appointments, notwithstanding the pendency of enquiry into charges, relating to corruption or any other misconduct, Sub Paragraph (1-G) of Paragraph " II, stated supra, runs contrary to rule 39(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and that therefore, the said paragraph, stated supra, has to be declared as ultra vires of the constitution.
4. When maintainability of the public interest writ petition, in service matters, was raised by us, Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on, a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Jaskaran Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab And Ors., (2005 (3) SLJ 354 P & H). At that juncture, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that judgments of other High Courts, do not have any binding effect, more particularly, when the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is to the effect that, a public interest writ petition is not maintainable in service matters, he sought for an adjournment.
5. Way back in 1998, in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue, as to whether a Public Interest Writ Petition, at the instance of a stranger, could be entertained, by the Administrative Tribunal. After considering the decisions in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671, the law declared in Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
18....... Section 3(b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3(q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated.
19.Our attention has been drawn to a judgement of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia Versus State of Orissa 1996. (1) OLR (CSR)-2. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. The following passage in the judgement is relevant:
"....A reading of the aforesaid provisions would mean that an application for redressal of grievances could be filed only by a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.
Tribunals are constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact law providing
for 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 or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government and such law shall specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals. Thus, it follows that Administrative Tribunals are constituted for adjudication or trial of the disputes and
complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts. Its jurisdiction and powers have been well-defined in the Act. It does not enjoy any plenary power." We agree with the above reasoning.
21.In the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger.
6. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
"5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression "public interest litigation". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), "public interest" is defined thus:
"Public interest."(1) A matter of public or general interest "does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected".
6. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), "public interest" is defined as follows:
"Public interest." Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial