2015 (2) TMI 414 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Question raised before Tribunal based on information sought under RTI Act - Held that - It needs to be noted that Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 only bars the jurisdiction of Courts other than Administrative Tribunal in the matters which could be the subject matter of challenge in issuing the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It does not bar a challenge to the contents of a communication obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Act is no to be confined only to a challenge to a formal order in service matters. In fact the definition of service matters under Section 3(q) of the Central Administrative Act, 1985 is very wide and is not dependent upon formal orders. To illustrate, when a person is superseded by his juniors, the person concerned can challenge his supersession even in the absence of a formal order. Hence, there would not be any specific order of the employer for a Senior Employee to challenge his supersession at the time of the promotion of a Junior employee. The information supplied to the petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005 explains why the applicants request for deemed date of promotion as Jr. Engineer Grade II with effect from 2003 has not been accepted. Therefore, it can be a subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The employees would therefore, be well within their right to challenge such decision which is received as information under Right to Information Act, 2005. We therefore, allow these petitions and direct the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain the petitioners applications in so far as they seek to challenge the decision of the concerned employer as conveyed in a reply dated 25 September, 2013 under Right to Information Act, 2005. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Administrative Tribunal under Article 226 - Jurisdiction of Courts under Right to Information Act, 2005 - Scope of challenge under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the challenge of a common order dated 25 September, 2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal had held that a communication received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot constitute a cause of action to be challenged before it. The communication in question highlighted discrepancies in the promotion process of the petitioners. The Tribunal's decision was based on the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which bars the jurisdiction of Courts in matters related to orders made under the Act. However, the High Court clarified that this section does not restrict challenges to the contents of a communication obtained under the Act. The jurisdiction under the Central Administrative Act is not limited to formal orders in service matters but extends to a wide range of issues, including challenges to decisions received as information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The High Court emphasized that the definition of service matters under the Central Administrative Act, 1985 is broad and not solely dependent on formal orders. It illustrated that challenges can be made even in the absence of formal orders, such as in cases of supersession. Therefore, the information provided to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the rejection of their request for promotion, could be a valid subject for challenge before the Tribunal. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain their applications challenging the decision conveyed in the reply dated 25 September, 2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The judgment clarified that the employer still retains the right to object to the maintainability of the original application on other grounds, and all defenses available to the employer will remain accessible in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the original applications filed by the petitioners were deemed maintainable. The Court did not delve into the merits of the dispute between the parties, keeping all contentions open. Finally, all the petitions were disposed of in the aforementioned terms, with no specific orders regarding costs.