Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 February, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH M.A.No.3/2009 in OA NO.303/2008 New Delhi, this the 24th day of February, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE M. VENKATESWARA REDDY, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Shri Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand) Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri V.S.R.Krishna and Shri Saba Rahman) ORDER By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
MA 3/2009 has been filed by the applicant No.2 [Shri Dileep Kumar Saxena] in OA No.303/2008 inter alia praying for action under the Contempt of the Courts Act against the respondents and a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the applicant and subsequently to place him in the merit list, with consequential benefits as given to other people placed in the panel.
2. Heard both the learned counsel and we have also gone through the pleadings of the case.
3. It is stated in the MA that earlier OA 303/3008 was filed with a prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in the viva voce test for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer because the applicants therein had already qualified in the written examination and were fully eligible as per rules as well as law. The applicants had also sought an interim relief to direct the respondents to provisionally allow them to appear in the viva voce test which is going to be held on 12.02.2008 or any other subsequent date on which it is adjourned.
4. When the aforesaid OA came up for hearing on 07.02.2008, this Tribunal while issuing notices to the respondents granted the following interim relief:
3. Meanwhile, applicants would be permitted to appear for viva voce test scheduled to be held on 12.2.2008 provisionally and subject to decision of this OA.
5. In view of the aforesaid interim relief, the applicants were allowed to sit in the viva voce test held on 12.2.2008.
6. When the OA came up for final hearing on 17.07.2008, it had been brought to the notice of the Bench that in pursuance of the interim order of this Tribunal dated 7.2.2008, the applicants were allowed to appear for the interview which was held on 12.02.2008 and the results are also declared on 20.02.2008, and on this basis the Bench was of the view that the object of filing of the OA stood achieved by the applicants and nothing further needed to be done and, therefore, the OA was dismissed as having become infructuous. Both counsel were present when this order was made.
7. Thereafter on an application filed by the applicant under the RTI Act, he has been informed vide letter dated 11.11.2008 as under:
(3) The marks obtained by all the candidates in the written test and viva-voce cannot be provided being confidential and also 3rd party information belonging to 18 other candidates, as per provision under R.T.I. Act 2005.
(4) The proceeding of the selection can not be provided as it is of confidential in nature as well as related to 18 other candidates.
(5) Since you had come on transfer to Northern Railway on 11.10.02 at your own request thus you were not eligible to appear in the subject selection.
(6) As you were not eligible on cut off date as such your result was not declared.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant therefore contends that a false statement about the declaration of the results had been made by the respondents, resulting in passing of a wrong order on the basis of this false submission, and that in doing so, the respondents have committed clear cut contempt.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have argued that the MA is not maintainable as it has been filed after the OA has been decided by the Tribunal. It is also stated that the relief in the MA is to be linked with the relief in the earlier OA and in this MA, the applicant is seeking directions over and above those sought in the OA and, on this ground too, the MA is not maintainable. Lastly, it is stated that MA has been filed after the period of limitation of 30 days and that while the OA was filed by three applicants, the MA is filed by only one applicant and is not maintainable on this ground also, and needs to be dismissed.
10. At the very outset, we must state that we are creatures of a Statute (the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985) and are bound by the statute and the rules laid down thereunder. The Act provides for certain remedies that can be availed of, after following certain procedures prescribed in the rules. If it is felt that there has been an error of fact or law in the earlier order, then the procedure prescribed has to be followed for seeking a review under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and this cannot be done through the MA filed.
11. Further, if the applicant seeks initiation of contempt proceedings then also there is a certain procedure prescribed in the Contempt of Courts Act which has to be followed, and the contempt proceedings cannot be sought to be initiated through an MA, as in the instant case.
12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the MA is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the applicant to take recourse to such remedies as may be available under law with regard to any grievance that he has. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.Venkateswara Reddy)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrsp/ CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
Pre-delivery order in MA No.3/2009 in OA No.303/2008
is sent herewith for kind consideration.
With regards,
(Shailendra Pandey)
Member (A)
19.02.2009
Honble Mr. Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy, M(J):
if anybody made contempt of court, a Contempt Petition has to be filed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, in the interest of justice, we proceed to dispose of the said MA.
11. In order to find out whether the respondents have committed any contempt, we have perused the order of the Tribunal as well as prayers made in the OA. Since the only main relief prayed was to allow the applicant to sit in the viva voce test, and on an interim orders passed by this Tribunal on 07.02.2008, he was permitted to sit in the viva voce test held on 12.02.2008, and having been participated in the test, nothing left in the OA as such the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the OA, as having became infructuous. It appears that it is not the case of the applicant that he had prayed to declare the result of the examination and respondents have made a wrong statement in that regard. As such, in our view, no contempt has been committed by the respondents.
As far as the other prayer made in this MA that the respondents be directed to declare the results etc. we cannot go into that aspect in the present proceedings as there was no such prayer made in the Original Application. If at all, the applicant has any grievance, he should take such recourse, if so advised, as is permissible under the law/rules.