Sunita W/O Shivakant vs Indian Airforce & Ors on 28 November, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sunita W/O Shivakant vs Indian Airforce & Ors on 28 November, 2017

Bench: G. Narendar

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

       WRIT PETITION NO.204269/2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sunita W/o Shivakant (D/o Ramesh)
Age: 25 years, Occ: Nil
R/o H.No.18-2-412, Chidri
Bidar-585 403
                                       ... PETITIONER

(By Hanmanthraya Sindol, Advocate (absent))

AND:

1.     Indian Airforce
       Head Quarter Training Command
       Bangalore-01
       By its Commandant

2.     CGO (Admn) O/C Civil Admin for AOC
       Indian Air Force
       Bidar-584 101
       By its Office Commander

3.     Sunita D/o Narsing
       Age: 33 years, Occ: Nil
                               2




      R/o Christian Street, Chidri
      Bidar-585 403
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri S.S. Aspalli learned ASGI for R-1 & R-2
    Sri.K.M.Ghate, Advocate for R-3)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the impugned selection list vide
employment news dated: 25 February to 03 March 2017
dated 29.07.2017 as per Annexure-D to the extent of
selection of 3rd respondent for the post of Ayah/Ward
Sahayika; issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents No.1 and 2 to select the petitioner for the
post of Ayah/Ward Sahayika in Air Force Station, Bidar,
etc.

      This petition coming on for Hearing - Interlocutory
Application this day, the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

Case is called out. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This Court in W.P.No.207542/2017, wherein the petitioner had called in question the selection list dated 29.07.2017 in respect of Fireman (UR), has held that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the 3 availability of alternate remedy of making an application before Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The said order came to be passed by placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and Others [AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125] the Central Administrative Tribunal is the competent forum to consider the case of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 99 of Chandra kumar case held that -

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 4 (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.

4. In the light of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petition calling in question the appointment of the 3rd respondent is a matter exclusively in the domain of Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, writ petition is dismissed as not being maintainable.

Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. If the application is preferred by the petitioner, within four weeks from today, the Tribunal shall condone any delay in approaching the forum.

In view of disposal of the above writ petition, I.A.2/17 and I.A.3/17 do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE RR/rs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court