Karnataka High Court
Dr. H.T. Venkata Setty vs Shiva Sailam on 18 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR2874, 1990(3)KARLJ276
ORDER Rama Jois, J.
1. In this matter referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the question of law that arises for considerations is:
"Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a Writ of quo-warranto against a person appointed to a civil post in the service of the State of Karnataka on the ground that he does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post is maintainable before this Court, or it falls within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal?
2. The matter has come up for orders. By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.
3. The above question arises in view of the Constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal pursuant to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act' for short) enacted by the Parliament pursuant to Article 323A of the Constitution of India. Article 323A reads:-
"323A. (1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the 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 of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
(2) A law made under Clause (1) may -
(a) provide for the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal for the Union and a separate Administrative Tribunal for each State or for two or more States;
(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said Tribunals;
(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said Tribunals;
(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in Clause (1);
(e) provide for the transfer to each such Administrative Tribunal of any cases pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such Tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;
(f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under Clause (3) of Article 371D;
(g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the endorsement of the orders of, such Tribunals.
(3) The provisions of this Article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force."
4. The above Article empowers the Parliament to enact a law to set up an Administrative Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating 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 Union or of any State. Clause (d) of Article 323-A(2) empowers the Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of all the Courts except the Supreme Court in relation to matters covered by the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Act. Pursuant to the said Article the Parliament enacted Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said Act provides for establishment of a Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of central service matters and a Tribunal for each of the States for deciding disputes and complaints in relation to service matters pertaining to respective States. Accordingly, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has been established in this State with effect from 6-10-1986. On and after the said date every dispute and/or complaint relating to the service matter, whether it arises with respect to recruitment or conditions of service of civil servants of this State, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court stands excluded in view of Section 28 of the Act.
5. The question as to what is the extent of exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution consequent on the setting up of the Administrative Tribunals under that Act came up for consideration before this Court in S.M. PATTA-NAIK SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA . In the said decision on interpretation of Article 323A of the Constitution as also the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this Court held that all disputes and complaints relating to service matters i.e., either with respect to recruitment or condition of service falls within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals and further by virtue of Section 28 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the High Courts in respect of these matters stands totally excluded. This Court further held that only questions relating to constitutional validity of any service law regulating recruitment and conditions of service whether enacted by an appropriate Legislature or by Rules made by the President or the Governor, as the case may be under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or by any executive order, were outside the scope of Article 323A and the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals and to that extent the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has not been excluded and cannot be excluded.
6. In this petition in which the prayer is for the issue of a Writ of quo-warranto against respondent No. 1 the real question which arises for consideration is whether the appointment of the 1st respondent as the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services is legally valid. This is essentially a dispute relating to recruitment and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Administrative Tribunal.
7. In accordance with the view taken in S.M. Pattanaik's case referred to above, we answer the question set out first as follows:
"A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a Writ of quo-warranto against a person appointed to a civil post in the State of Karnataka on the ground that he does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post is not maintainable and that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal."
8. In the result, we make the following order:-
"The Writ Petition is dismissed leaving liberty for the petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal, if he is so advised."