Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurabh Sahu vs The Union Of India on 6 January, 2017
-1-
Writ Petition No.17/2017
06/01/2017
Shri K. K. Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment to a post under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has been notified and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the petitioner is claiming appointment under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., he has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal at the first instance.
The apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 in paragraphs No.99 has held as under:-
"In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323A and 323B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. 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 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 concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated."
In light of the aforesaid judgment, present petition is not -2- maintainable and the petitioner has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal at the first instance. Accordingly, the admission is declined and a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
C. C. as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej