Abhishek Patel vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 12872 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                                    JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                               ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 5020 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ABHISHEK PATEL S/O BABULAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT
                          24  YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O VILLAGE
                          SANSWARI POST SAKET TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ATUL ANAND AWASTHY - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI R.S.
                          THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
                                MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA NEW
                                DELHI (DELHI)

                          2.    C O L L E C T O R , N A R M A D A P U R A M DISTRICT
                                NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CUB SUB
                                DIVISIONAL   OFFICER ITARSI,  DISTRICT
                                NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
                          THE RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in lieu of land acquired by Railway Administration, the petitioner deserves appointment as per

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/10/2023 3:16:24 PM

the policy. He submits that appointment needs to be given by Railway Administration. Shri Awasthy, learned Senior counsel relied upon certain single Bench orders of this Court wherein representations were directed to be decided.

The petitioner is claiming appointment/employment in Railway Administration.

A conjoint reading of Section 3(q) read with Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in the opinion of this Court, the remedy avaialble before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India

reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 opined as under :-

" 9 3 . Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules.

However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/10/2023 3:16:24 PM

of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, a s mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned."

(Emphasis supplied) In view of this binding Constitution Bench judgment, the Court of first instance for service matters is the Central Administrative Tribunal and high Court is not obliged to act as a Court of first instance. Thus, the petition is not maintainable and Single Bench orders passed by other Benches in ignorance of Constitution Bench Judgement are not binding on this Court.

The petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal.

CC as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE R

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/10/2023 3:16:24 PM