Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vinay Kumar Chaurasia vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 28 May, 2014
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 763 of 2010
Allahabad this the 28th day of _May, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J
Honble Ms. B. Bhamathi, Member-A
Vinay Kumar Chaurasia, aged about 36 years Son of Late Shri Khemraj Chaurasia, R/o Mohalla Malakpura, Mahoba, District Mahoba.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri N.P. Singh
Vs.
1. Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai.
2. General Manager (E), Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai.
3. Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal.
4. Assistant Personnel Officer (R & T), Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Church Gate, Mumbai.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri P.N. Rai
(Reserved on 10th May, 2014)
O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s): -
(i) Issue a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.07.2009 (Annexure No. A-15 of the original application) passed by the respondents;
(ii) Issue a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide the alternate appointment in pursuance of the letter dated 16.11.2006 issued by the respondents;
(iii) Issue a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the applicant in regular service from the date of his offer of appointment and allow the Original Application with all consequential benefits;
(iv) Any other relief which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award the cost of the application to the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case (relevant for the present purpose) are as follows: -
The Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal through Employment Notice No. 3/2005 dated 17-23 December, 2005 notified different vacancies. In pursuance of the same, applicant submitted his application against item No. 24 of the aforesaid notification for the post of Electrical Signal Maintainer, Group III in the pay scale of `3050-4590/-. He appeared in the written examination and was declared successful. After verification of educational qualification by the selection body, applicant was called for training in the category of Apprentice ESM-III and an offer of appointment in the aforesaid pay scale was issued. In the medical test of applicant, conducted by the Divisional Medical Officer, Western Railway, Mumbai on 12.12.2006, the applicant was not found fit for Bee-One category and he was found fit for Bee-Two and below category. The applicant tried for alternative appointment but the respondents did not offer him alternative appointment on some ground or the other hence, this O.A. was filed.
3. The respondents have filed the Counter Reply mainly stating that the applicants request for alternative appointment was examined and since there was no vacancy in equivalent grade, in which applicant was found medically fit, alternative appointment could not be offered to him. Further, it has been stated that by letter dated 25.05.2009, the Board has decided to discontinue the policy of providing alternative appointment to the medically failed empanelled candidates selected through RRB/RRCs for any Group D post and accordingly applicants request for alternative employment cannot be considered now.
4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
5. At the time of argument of the case, the Bench inquired from learned counsel for the applicant regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal with regard to this case. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to convince the Bench regarding jurisdiction of this Tribunal submitting that the applicant is resident of Mohalla Malakpura, Mahoba, District Mahoba. He has also submitted that since no such plea has been taken by the respondents in their Counter Reply, this point cannot be considered at this stage.
6. It is true that no such objection or plea regarding jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been taken or raised by the respondents in Counter Reply. Now, the question before this Tribunal is as to whether the point of jurisdiction of this Tribunal regarding this case can be considered even though no such plea has been raised by the respondents in their Counter Reply. It is a settled view of law that the legal plea can be raised or considered at any stage of the case. Before entering into detailed discussion over this matter, it is desirable to mention the provisions contained under Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which is as follows: -
6. Place of filing application. (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or
(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. A perusal of above provision shows that ordinarily an application can be filed by the applicant where he is posted for the time being or the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. In sub clause (2), an exception has been laid down i.e. where the person who has ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. In other words, the applicant can file an application at the place where he is residing only after he has ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service. No other person can file application at the place where he is ordinarily residing. In the present case, undoubtedly, applicant is residing in District Mahoba, apparently within the jurisdiction of Allahabad Bench of the C.A.T. but he has to satisfy that his application can be entertained under Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules. Admittedly, applicant has neither ceased to be in service by reason of retirement nor dismissed nor terminated. There is nothing on record to prove that any cause of action has arisen even in part within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal except the fact that he is residing in District Mahoba.
7. Similarly, a perusal of array of respondents in the O.A. also shows that there are five respondents including respondent No. 5 (private respondent) who has been subsequently deleted by the applicant and still there are four respondents. The address of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai and the address of respondent No. 3 is Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal. None of the above respondents have their office within the jurisdiction of Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal.
8. The contention of applicant that since the point of jurisdiction has not been raised by the respondents in their Counter Reply, it cannot be considered at this stage is devoid of force as jurisdictional point is a legal issue which can be considered suo moto by the Tribunal itself at any stage of the proceedings and once it is found that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction, entire contention of applicant goes. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh (1993) 2 SCC 507, has observed on the point of jurisdiction, as follows: -
A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (2004) 8 SCC 706, as follows: -
Where a court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, nonest and void ab initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 198 reiterating the view taken in the case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437, has observed as under: -
. . .when a tribunal of limited jurisdiction erroneously assumes jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision are wholly unwarranted with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and its validity can be raised in collateral proceedings. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishna Dayal Sharma (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 212 in which the Honble Apex Court has observed as follows: -
There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a Superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised even at a belated stage in execution. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute.
9. In the light of above discussions, it is clear that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction over the matter in dispute. Accordingly, O.A. is not maintainable before this Bench of the Tribunal. O.A. is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No order as to costs.
(Ms. B. Bhamathi) {Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member A Member - J
/M.M/
8