9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions have arisen for decision (1) whether an Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') can entertain a public interest litigation and (ii) whether on the facts of this case the Tribunal has exceed its jurisdication in passing the impugned order? 3.The facts are as follows: The petitioner in S.L.P. 10472-10474/95 hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, a qualified surgeon with M.S. Degree in General Surgery and been working in the Department of Gastroenterology of S.C.B. Medical Collage, Cuttack as an Assistant Surgeon from 17.09.1987. Earlier he worked as lecturer in General Surgery from 11.06.84 to 17.09.86. From 17.09.87, he was assisting the professor and Head of the Department of Surgical gastroenterology for about five years during which period he had acquired 'Special training/experience' in the said subject. 4. The Orissa Public Service Commission caused advertisement No. 27 of 1991/92 inviting applications for the post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in several disciplines including Surgical Gastroenterology. The last date for receipt of applications was 15.05.92. The minimum educational qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CI ruler along with other eligible candidates. The petitioner and Dr. M.K. Mohapatra were called for the viva voce test. The name of Dr. Mohapatra was recommended to Government along with the advice that the Commission had maintained a reserve list of suitable candidates for a period of one year from the date of recommendation. Dr. Mohapatra was appointed as Junior Teacher. 7. The Government found that the department of Surgical Gastroenterology was under staffed as it had only one Professor and one Lecturer and it was not in accordance with MCI pattern. Hence the Government created one more post of Lecturer on 25.08.93. On the same day, the Government requested the Public Service Commission to recommend the name of a suitable candidate from the reserve list. On 30.08.93, the Commission recommended the name of the pititioner for appointment. 8. At that stage one candi charan Routray in his capacity as General Secretary, Cuttack Surakhya Committee filed O.A. 1439/93 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bhubaneswar. Another application O.A. 1630/93 was filed by the Cuttack surakhya Committee through Jitendra Kumar Mishra before the same Bench. A thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e views of the IMC who are also parties to the litigation, unfortunately are not available as no counter or submission has been filed on their behalf. But it stands to common sense that special training in a super speciality which is to be substituted for a Master's degree in that discipline should be in an apex-medical institution like the AIIMS, specially notified by the IMC for the purpose. There is no indication to show that SCB medical college has been recognized as an institution for imparting special training in Surgical Gastroenterology. The Government counter also does not says so. On the other hand, certain averments in the government counter that the said department in SCB Medical College is under-staffed and that it was manned only by a Professor till Dr. Mohapatra joined as Lecturer, points to the conclusion that it was not equipped with adequate facilities for imparting special training. No doubt Dr. Sahoo has acquired sufficient practical experience by assisting the Head of Deptt. for a long period of six years and the list of publications he has to his credit, as given in his counter, would support such a view. But it cannot be said that he has acquired the special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a public-spirited person." These observations were not specifically concurred to by the other two Members of the Bench (one of us being one such member). The Administrative Service Tribunals have been recognised by this Court to be substitutes of the High Court and other Courts having had jurisdiction in the matter. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has power to issue a writ of quo warranto and that can undeniably be sought by any person; not necessarily a person aggrieved. Would it be otherwise and locus standi being determined purely on the axis of Section 19, the purpose of creating the Service Tribunal would seemingly be frustrated. It may therefore crop up that the above observations of K. Ramaswamy, J may attract an exception. In any case, the matter is important in order to define jurisdiction of the tribunal and therefore in the fitness of things, should be placed before a three Member Bench. We therefore direct these special leave petitions to be heard by a three-Member Bench." 12. We have heard counsel on both sides at length. Severa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters set out in the section. Similarly, section 15 provides for the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals in relation to matters set out therein. Sections 19 to 27 of the Act deal with the procedure. Section 19 strikes the key-note. Sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 19 are in the following terms: S.19 (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. (a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Govt. of India or by any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government; of (b) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or a local or other authority or corporation (or society) referred to in clause (a) ******************* ******************* S.19 (4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sup-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of such application pending immediate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act is that the Tribunal should quickly redress the grievances in relation to service matters. The definition of 'service matters' found in Section 3 (q) shows that in relation to a person the expression means all service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The significance of the word 'his' cannot be ignored. Section 3 (b) defines the word 'application' as an application made under Section 19. The latter Section refers to 'person aggrieved'. In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the work 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-s. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the Tribunal. It in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation for issue of a writ of quo warranto before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings before the Tribunal is in the nature of quo warranto and it could be filed by any member of the public as he is an aggrieved person in the sense public interest is affected. We have already pointed out that the applications in the present case have been filed before the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer and the relevant prayers are to quash the creation of the post itself and preventing authorities from appointing the petitioner as lecturer. Hence, the applications filed by the respondents cannot be considered to be quo warranto. 21. In the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger. 22. Turning to the second question, even the facts set out by us earlier would show that the petitioner satisfied the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of lecturer. The only contention urged is that the petitioner did not have two years special training in Surgical Gastroenterology from an in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
