Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Mamta Chopra vs Atul Keshav Pateriya on 11 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA 278/2010 OA 1764/2009 MA 2644/2010 With CP 5/2010 RA 280/2010 MA 2789/2010 OA 1473/2009 New Delhi this the 11th day of February, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) RA No. 278/2010 1. Ms. Mamta Chopra, W/o S. Rajeev Chopra, R/o B-112, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. 2. Ms. Jaya Sinha, D/o Sh. K.S.B. Sinha, R/o D-302, SG Apartment, Flat No. 23, Sec. 6, Dwarka, Delhi. 3. Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, R/o B-23, Ist Floor, South Extension-2, New Delhi. 4. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Joshi, S/o Sh. K.D. Joshi, Abhay Khand-III, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. 5. Ms. Sakal Bhatt, W/o Wing Commander Vishal Gupta, R/o D-101 Palam Apartments, Sec-5, Plot 7, Dwarka, Delhi. 6. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Chaudhri, W/o Mr. Divyanmanu Chaudhry, R/o D-58, Hauz Khas, Ground Floor, New Delhi-16. 7. Mr. Aryendra Pratap Singh, S/o Sh. R.S. Rathore, R/o Flat No.502, Sec. 17C, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, U.P. 8. Mr. Rahul Gupta S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad Gupta, R/o D-20, Ground Floor, Sec-40, Noida. 9. Mr. Ashotosh Pandey, S/o Sh. Ramayan Pandey, R/o Room No. 8, 2nd Floor, F-29, Ber Sarai, New Delhi-16 10. Ms. Preeti Kaur W/o Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhalla, R/o A1/11 Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi-110052 11. Ms. Rajni Sen D/o Sh. V.S. Sen, R/o 122 A/10, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. 12. Ms. Piyushi Sharman, D/o Sh. S.C.Sharman, R/o D-145, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92 13. Mr. Asim Kumar, S/o Sh. Yogendra Mishra, C/o Anil Kumar, S-218 A, School Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 14. Ms. Ramaa Tyagi, D/o Sh. Jasver Singh Tyagi, R/o P21, Chanakya Place Near CI, Janakpuri, Delhi. 15. Mr. Nadeem Ansari, S/o Shri A.S. Ansari, R/o S-117, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92 16. Mr. Ashwini Kumar S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan Mishra, R/o Flat No. 330, Sec. 1, Pocket 1, Dwarka, Delhi. 17. Mr. Aamir Rizvi, S/o Sh. Mohd Hasnain, R/o 478-D Shipra Sun City, Indrpuram, Ghaziabad. Review Applicants (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra ) VERSUS 1. Atul Keshav Pateriya, House No. 103, Gagan Vihar Extension, East Delhi-110051 2. The Union of India Through The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Director General, Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi-110001 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Mandi House, New Delhi-110001 5. The General Manager, Broadcasting Engineering Consultants India Ltd., (A Govt. of India Enterprise), Head Office : 14B, Ring Road, Indraprastha Estates, New Delhi-2 6. Mr. Om Prakash Das, S/o Sh. Harish Chandra Das, R/o RZF 1, 385 A, Flat No.401, Gali No. 2, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-110045 7. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Krishan Gopal Singh, R/o Flat N. 109, Tower B, Gaur Ganga Apartment, Sec-4,Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP-201010 8. Sh. Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, 92, North Avenue, New Delhi-110001 . Review respondents (By Advocates Shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak for respondent No.1 (Applicants in OA and CP ), Shri Ajay Khanna for R-3 and 4 and Shri Harish Kumar Garg for respondent No. 5) RA 280/2010 1. Ms. Jaya Sinha, D/o Sh. K.S.B. Sinha, R/o D-302, SG Apartment, Flat No. 23, Sec. 6, Dwarka, Delhi 2. Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, R/o B-23, 1st Floor, South Extension-2, New Delhi 3. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Joshi, S/o Sh. K.D. Joshi, R/o G-101, Milan Vihar, Ist Abhay Khand-III, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. 4. Ms. Sakal Bhatt, W/o Wing Commander Vishal Gupta, R/o D-101 Palam Apartments, Sec. 5, Plot 7, Dwarka, Delhi 5. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal Chaudhri, W/o Mr. Divyanmanu Chaudhry R/o D-58, Hauz Khas, Ground Floor, New Delhi-16 6. Mr. Aryendra Pratap Singh, S/o Sh. R.S. Rathore, R/o Flat No. 502, Sec. 17C, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, U.P. 7. Mr. Rahul Gupta, S/o Sh. Rajender Prashad Gupta, R/o D-20, Ground Floor, Sec. 40, Noida 8. Mr. Ashotosh Pandey, S/o Sh. Ramayan Pandey, R/o Room No. 8, 2nd Floor, F-29, Ber Sarai, New Delhi-16 9. Ms. Preeti Kaur, W/o Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhalla, R/o A1/11 Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi-52 10. Ms. Rajni Sen, D/o Sh. V.S. Sen, R/o 122 A/10, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi 11. Ms. Piyushi Sharman, D/o Sh. S.C. Sharman, R/o D-145, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92 12. Mr. Asim Kumar, S/o Sh. Yogendra Mishra, C/o Anil Kumar, S-218A, School Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 .Review Applicants (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra ) VERSUS 1. Harikesh Bahadur Singh Gautam, R/o 462, Block 13, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi 2. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi 3. The Prasar Bharti, Through its CEO, PTI Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-01 4. DD News, Through its Director Genera, Central Production Centre (CPC), Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 5. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited, Through its CMD 14-B, Ring Road, Indrapastha Estate, New Delhi-110002 6. Mamta Chopra, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi-49 7. Om Prakash Das, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi-49 8. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 9. Anika Kalra Kalha, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 10. Hindoil Basu, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gain, New Delhi. 11. Swati Bakshi, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 12. Ramaa Tyaagi, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 13. Nadeem Akhtar Ansari, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 14. Ashwini Kumar, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 15. Yashvi Tirath, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 16. Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 17. Aamir Rizvi, Anchor Cum Correspondent, Central Production Centre, DD News, Khel Gaon, New Delhi. 18. Suhail Akram Rathor S/o Sh. Mohd Akram Rathor R/o 308-A 2nd Floor, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Review Respondents (By Advocates Shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak for respondent No.1 (Applicants in OA and CP ), Shri Ajay Khanna for R-3 and 4 and Shri Harish Kumar Garg for respondent No. 5) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
We are dealing with both the Review Applications, filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in this common order as these seek the review and recall of the common order dated 13.09.2010 passed in OAs number 1473/2009 and 1674/2009. The facts have been extracted from RA number 278/2010.
2. The applicants in the aforementioned OAs had challenged the selection process for the posts of Senior Anchor-cum-Correspondent Grade I, Anchor-cum-Correspondent Grade II and Junior Anchor-cum-Correspondent Grade III in the Doordarshan News (DD News) and the consequent final selections made for the posts by order dated 17.01.2009 by the respondents therein. The operative part of the order dated 13.09.2009 has been reproduced below:
17. On the basis of the above consideration we are of the opinion that the process of selection for the posts in question suffers from arbitrariness and irregularities have been committed in the process, which has vitiated the whole process. The OA is allowed. The selection for the posts of senior Anchor-cum- Correspondent Grade 1, Anchor-cum-Correspondent Grade II and Junior Anchor-cum-Correspondent Grade III initiated vide letter dated 29.08.2008 culminating in recommendation dated 17.01.20009 is quashed and set aside. Appointments made for the aforesaid posts also on the basis of recommendation dated 17.01.2009 are also set aside.
3. There are 17 review applicants, out of whom the Applicants number 1 to 5 have been selected to Grade I posts, Applicants number 6 to 9 have been selected for Grade II posts and the rest to Grade III posts. Review has been sought on the following two grounds:
(1) the review applicants were not arrayed and impleaded in the OA; and (2) the OA was not maintainable as this Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the issue.
4. The learned counsel for the review applicants would contend that they were not given any notice and were proceeded against ex parte. He would contend that it was a settled position in law that review was permissible if the judgement was passed without notice to the parties. Reliance has been placed on Bhola Nath Chatterjee V. Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan and others, AIR 1932 Calcutta 265, Debi Baksh V. Shambhu Dial and another, AIR 1926 Allahabad 384 and Smt. Gauri Kumari Devi V. Krishna Prasad and others, AIR 1957 Patna 575. He would further contend that the Tribunal did not pass any order to proceed ex parte against the review applicants and, therefore, it could not proceed in the case under Rule 11 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
5. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the review applicants was that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter inasmuch as the selection in question was not to any regular post or on post of regular establishment of the Government/respondents number 1 to 3. As a matter of fact professionals in the field were sought to be engaged on contract basis. The selection was for contractual engagement on fixed remuneration. Copy of contract executed with one of the review applicants has been placed on record. It is stated that the contract would reveal that it had been made for individual engagement for hiring on purely contractual basis in lieu of professional services rendered by the employee. It was stated that the terms of the contract require a standard of conduct to be "not unbecoming of his profession". This indicates that the employment is not under the Government. It was urged that an error of law was an error apparent on the face of record.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents in the Review Application urged that the provision of CPC would apply in so far as the power of the Tribunal to review its order under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is concerned, although otherwise the Tribunal was not bound by the procedure laid down in CPC. Reliance has been placed on State of West Bengal and others V. Kamal Sengupta and others, (2008) 8 SCC 612. Paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgement has been extracted below:
35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier. It was urged that once Writ Petition had been filed in the matter before the Honourable Delhi High Court, all the matters, sought to be based in the Review Application, could be raised in that petition. This would, it was submitted, be in conformity with Order XLVII Rule 2 of the CPC, which is extracted below:
2. A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. The learned counsel would also argue that Doordarshan, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BACIL), the agency which conducted the tests, and some of the persons who were selected in the process were contesting respondents. It was not necessary that all those who had been selected should be represented. He would contend that the principles of natural justice would not apply in such cases. Reliance has been placed on Ashwani Kumar V. State of Bihar, (1996) 7 SCC 577. The following observation of the Honourable Supreme Court was cited:
29. These facts give rise to the question whether the termination orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and if so, what purpose would it serve? With the aid of principles of natural justice, the courts preserve rule of law keeping arbitrary action by the executive or the legislature within the confines of law. Courts have to examine in each case the balance of fairness, whether the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem visits with irremediable civil consequences and its incursion on administration, if action is invalidated. No set rule or standard of universal application can possibly be laid for application to all sets of cases. Courts exercise their power of judicial review with circumspection to weigh in balance the fairness of action. Therefore, though the principles of natural justice are omnipervasive, in given circumstances their non-application may also advance cause of justice to prevent misuse or abuse of power or of the judicial process. It is settled law that post-decisional opportunity is valid to cure the illegality complained of. Though the role of precedents have copiously been cited by the counsel on either side, we are relieved of referring to them in extenso on the ultimate test: what purpose the doctrine of audi alteram partem would ultimately serve to advance the cause of justice. One decision of this Court is of necessity to be referred to. In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 3 SCR 963 this Court held that when the impugned direction did not concern a single individual but at least large majority of them were involved in adopting unfair means in writing the examinations, the question arose whether cancellation of the examinations without giving an opportunity was in violation of principles of natural justice. (emphasis added) In Ashok Kumar Sonkar V. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 it was held that:
27. It is also, however, well-settled that it cannot be put any straight (sic) jacket formula. It may not be in a given case applied unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.
28. A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard. In Union of India and others V. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 it was obsessed that:
12. As per the report of CB1 the whole selection smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large- scale, widespread and all-pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishna Yadav applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed. (emphasis added) In UP Junior Doctors Action Committee V. B. Sheetal Nandwani (Dr), (1990) 4 SCC 633 it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that:
5. From the report it is manifest that a fake order in a non-existent writ petition was produced before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court for securing the order dated June 4, 1990. It also transpires that on the basis of alleged order dated May 25, 1990 and the subsequent order of June 4, 1990 some admissions have been secured in some of the medical colleges. Those who have taken admission on the basis of such orders, that is on the basis of the M.B.B.S. result without going through a selection examination cannot be allowed to continue in the post-graduate courses. We are satisfied that there is a deep-seated conspiracy which brought about the fake order from Allahabad, the principal seat of the High Court and on the basis thereof a subsequent direction has been obtained from the Lucknow Bench of the same High Court. The first order being non-existent has to be declared to be a bogus one. The second order made on the basis of the first order has to be set aside as having been made on the basis of misrepresentation. We are alive to the situation that the persons who have taken admission on the basis of the M.B.B.S. results are not before us. The circumstances in which such benefit has been taken by the candidates concerned do not justify attraction of the application of rules of natural justice of being provided an opportunity to be heard. At any rate now that we have at the instance of the U.P. Government ordered the selection examination to be held, admission on the basis of M.B.B.S. results cannot stand. We accordingly direct that admissions, if any, on the basis of M.B.B.S. results granted after the impugned orders of the High Court shall stand vacated and the Principals of the medical colleges of U.P. are directed to implement the direction forthwith. A copy of this order shall be communicated to each of the Principals of the seven medical colleges in the State of U.P. for compliance. (emphasis added) It was further urged that directions had been given by the Tribunal to serve the Review Applicants, respondents in the OA, through Doordarshan, the official respondent as prescribed in Rule 11 (1) (iv) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Furthermore, Rule 11 (8) ibid also provides that:
11.(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (4), if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to serve notice of application upon all the respondents, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the application shall be heard notwithstanding that some of the respondents have not been served with notice of the application:
Provided that no application shall be heard unless,-
(i) notice of the application has been served on the Central Government or the State Government , if such Government is a respondent;
(ii) notice of the application has been served on the authority which passed the order against which application has been filed; and
(iii) the Tribunal is satisfied that the interests of the respondents on whom notice of the application has not been served are adequately and sufficiently represented by the respondents on whom notice of the application has been served. The learned counsel for the Respondents in the RA would contend that the Tribunal could proceed against the Review Applicants ex parte. He would contend that the power existed, although specific order was not passed, which will not necessarily vitiate the proceedings. It was argued that it was not the case of the Review Applicants that they were not aware of the pending OA and had no information about it. Some of those who were selected in the impugned selection process had appeared before the Tribunal. All of them are working in the same office and it would not be wrong to infer that the Review Applicants would have known about the pendency of the OAs, the order in which was sought to be recalled.
7. It is a fact that a number of those persons who had been selected for the posts of Senior Anchor et cetera, selection process in which case had been challenged, appeared before the Tribunal and made their submissions also. All these points had been raised and directions had been given to the official Respondents to serve the Review Applicants, respondents in the OA, yet they were not served. The challenge was to the process of selection and, as per the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgements cited above, it may not be necessary to give notice to all the persons who were selected in the process, which was under challenge. It is precisely for this reason that the judgements relied upon by the Review Applicants, about the matter becoming amenable to review, if notice was served on the parties, would not advance their cause. The reason is that in Debi Baksh (supra) and Bhola Nath Chatterjee (supra) there is only one party each in respective cases to whom notice had not been given. In Debi Baksh (supra) it was held that amendment of decree without giving opportunity to the party against whom it is to operate is open to review. In Bhola Nath Chatterjee the High Court observed:
In this case a Rule has been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge in appeal and the order of the Munsif of the Second Court at Bankura, vacating an order setting aside a sale, and confirming the sale should not be set aside. The property in question was sold in execution of a decree on 17th April, and the sale was set aside on deposit by the petitioner of the decretal amount under S. 174, Ben. Ten. Act, on 8th May and the order now objected to is an order cancelling the order setting aside the sale, on an application for review made by the auction purchaser under O.47 R.1. The sale was set aside on the ground of the discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced by the auction purchaser at the time when the order setting aside the sale was passed. The new and important matter consisted of a judgment and decree dismissing a suit by the plaintiff, to establish his title to the land in suit. In that suit it was found by the Court that the plaintiff had no title in the land.
In this Rule it is urged that there was no proof of the allegation that this previous decree was not within the applicants knowledge at the time the order setting aside the sale was passed. Under O.47, R.4, Cl 2 (b), there must be strict proof that the new and important matter was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time the order was passed. In this case it is clear that not only was there no proof of want of knowledge on the part of the applicant, but there was even no allegation that the previous decree was not within his knowledge. But it seems to me that apart from the reason given by the Court below, for reviewing the order, on the ground of new and important matter, not within his knowledge there was very good reason, for reviewing the order, inasmuch as the record shows that no notice of the application to make the deposit under S.174, was given to the auction purchaser, and under the proviso to Cl. 2, S.174-A, no order can be made under that section, unless notice has been given. Therefore, although the review was wrongly made on the ground of new and important matter not within the applicants knowledge the review was justified by the fact, that no notice of the application to deposit was given to the auction purchaser. It is argued that on the day which was fixed for confirmation of the sale, it must be held that the auction purchaser had notice. I find however that the balance of the decretal amount was paid long before the date fixed for the confirmation of the sale, so that there was no need for the auction purchaser to appear on that date. But in any case, the section requires that notice of the deposit should be given and this was not done, and therefore, the Court was entitled to review the order setting aside the sale. The facts in the OA and in the above cited cases are clearly distinguishable. We are not quoting the other judgements relied upon by the Applicant, because the circumstances are same as in the above case. In so far as the argument that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter is concerned, there is no bar on entertaining applications from contract employees. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads thus:
14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts [ except the Supreme Court ( ) ] in relation to recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;
all service matters concerning-
(i) a member of any All India Service; or
(ii) a person [ not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in Clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) a civilian [ not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in Clause (c) ] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence;
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation [or Society] owned or controlled by the Government.
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any Corporation [or Society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
[EXPLANATION.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that reference to Union in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union Territory.] The Tribunal has jurisdiction over the service matters pertaining to Prasar Bharti. The posts in question are 'civil posts' under the respondents in the OA. There is no bar, in our considered opinion, regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this matter. Moreover, once Writ Petition has been filed against the order in the OA, these issues can be raised in that petition.
8. On the above ground the Review Applications are dismissed.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk