Hemant Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12993 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                           ON THE 10 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 27008 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          HEMANT KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SHRI BHAIYALAL
                          DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          UNEMPLOYED    R/O   VILLAGE   BHILAUNI   POST
                          SARKANPUR   TEHSIL    BALDEOGARH     DISTRICT
                          TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR PATHAK - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAND ACQUISITION
                                DEPARTMENT     BHOPAL    (M.P.) (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
                                BHOPAL BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    GENERAL MANAGER WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
                                PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT JABALPUR DISTRICT
                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    DEPUTY     CHIEF   PERSONNEL     OFFICE
                                (RECRUITMENT) WEST CENTRAL      RAILWAY
                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION
                                O F F I C E R TEHSIL BALDEOGARH DISTRICT
                                TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    COLLECTOR TIKARGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.    VARISHTHA MANDAL KARMIK ADHIKARI
                                (BHOOMI ADHIGRAHAN BHARTI ANUBHAG )
                                MANDAL RAIL PRABANDHAK KARYALAYA WEST
Signature Not Verified
                                CENTRAL  RAILWAY CIVIL LINES JABALPUR
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 8/11/2023
5:09:44 PM
                                                             2
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          8.    DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONNEL
                                BRANCH) WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY DISTRICT
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL)

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

Heard.

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

He submits that appointment needs to be given by Railway Administration. Shri Phatak, learned 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.

As per conjoint reading of Section 3(q) read with Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in the opinion of this Court, the remedy lies 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 5:09:44 PM

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 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 5:09:44 PM

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE R

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 5:09:44 PM