Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Brij Viaks Party vs Union Of India Through on 20 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.923/2012 New Delhi this the 20th day of March, 2012. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Brij Viaks Party, Through its National President Minesh Gupta, Having Office at 107/9, Kishangarh, Vasantkunj, New Delhi-70 -Applicant (By Advocate Shri Aseem Mehrotra) -Versus- 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 3. Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (Deemed University), through its Registrar, Girinagar, Pune-411 025 (Maharasthra). 4. All India Council for Technical Education, Through its Member-Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-1. 5. Prof. S.S. Mantha, Acting Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-1. 6. Dr. M.K. Hada, Advisor (Approval), All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-1. 7. Dr. S.G. Bhirud, e-Governance Cell, Adviser-I, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-1. -Respondents O R D E R (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
Applicant, who is a registered political party, has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
a) direct the Respondent No.1 to fill up the post of Chairman, AICTE, New Delhi which is lying vacant since August 2009;
b) quash the appointment of Respondent No.5 as Acting Chairman of A.I.C.T.E.;
c) quash the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Advisor-I, A.I.C.T.E. as being ineligible for being appointed to the said post;
d) quash the appointment of Respondent No.7, as e-Governance Cell, Advisor-I, A.I.C.T.E.
e) this Honble Tribunal may further kindly be pleased to pass any other/further/direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
2. As can be seen from the relief clause, applicant has made a grievance regarding appointment of Respondent No.5 as Acting Chairman, All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and to fill the post of Chairman AICTE, New Delhi, which is lying vacant since August, 2009 and also regarding appointment of respondent No.6, as Advisor-I, AICTE and appointment of respondent No.7 as e-Governance Cell, Advisor-I, AICTE and has prayed that their appointment letters may be quashed. As can be seen from the averments made in the OA the post of Chairman, AICTE, which was held by Shri R.A. Yadav fell vacant, as he was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure A-2) along with other persons because of serious gross irregularities committed by him while holding the said post and CBI also registered a case against him and other officials. Respondent No.5, who was working as Vice Chairman, AICTE at that time, was asked to hold the temporary charge as Chairman of the Council, which arrangement, according to the learned counsel of applicant is still continuing. It is further stated that respondent No.1 had advertised for filling up the post of Chairman, AICTE only in February, 2011 and no person has been appointed till date. Regarding appointment of respondent No.6 as Advisor-I in AICTE, it has been stated that respondent No.5 before being appointed as Vice-Chairman, AICTE was teaching in State of Maharashtra in different colleges was instrumental in getting respondent No.6 appointed as Advisor, who was earlier working in Government Engineering College, Jalgaon (Maharashtra) till 2009 is now heading three cells in AICTE i.e., In-Charge of e-Governance Cell as Adviser-I, In-Charge of Legal Cell as Adviser-I and also as CVO of Vigilance Cell and does not possess the requisite experience, as required under the Rules, whereas respondent No.6 is only having 13 years of experience. Regarding respondent No.7, it has been stated that he has also been appointed because of his close proximity with respondent No.5 and he has been allowed to head three different cells of important nature. It is on the basis of these averments applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. We have heard learned counsel of the applicant at the admission stage. We are of the view that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as admittedly the applicant is a registered political party and cannot be said to be an aggrieved party in terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Apex Court in a number of decisions has held that in service matters it is only the non-appointee who can assail legality of the appointment procedure and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable in service matters. At this stage, we may notice few decisions of the Apex Court.
4. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three judge Bench of this Court held a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. The Apex Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and held as under:
"if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the (Administrative) Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated".
Same reasoning applies here as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.
5. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), Apex Court held that in service matters only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure (See para 61, page 755 of the report).
6. This view was very strongly expressed by the Honble Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590, by pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (supra), PILs in service matters `continue unabated'. It was further opined that High Courts should `throw out' such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu (supra)
7. Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, at page 358 (Para 16).
8. In a recent decision of the Apex Court delivered on 30.8.2010, in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (JT 2010 (9) SC 192), it has been held that except in a case for a writ of `Quo Warranto', PIL in a service matter is not maintainable
9. From the facts, as stated above, it is evident that applicant has not made a challenge regarding appointments of respondents No.5 & 7 de hors the Rules, although for quashing of appointment of respondent No.6 it has been stated that he does not possess the requisite experience, though fulfills other eligibility criteria. Thus, the grievance raised by the applicant in this case is not regarding issuance of writ of Quo Warranto and thus in terms of the law laid dwon by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal (supra) except in the case for a writ of Quo Warranto, PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. Even on this ground also the OA cannot be entertained.
10. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that PIL at the instance of the applicant, who is a registered political party, is not maintainable, in view of the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as noticed above. Accordingly, OA is dismissed at the admission stage itself, without any order as to costs.
(Manjulika Gautam) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.