- (1.) THE question as to whether an interim and interlocutory order/s passed in the Original application/s by the Tribunal below pending disposal of the main Original Application itself by it and final determination of the case, could be the subject matter of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been referred to before us in this case.
(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this reference has arisen on the following facts: On 9. 11. 1995, a Seniority List of Assistant/rural Welfare Officer Grade-1 was drawn by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. Challenging the same, Tirunelveli Rural Welfare Officers Association filed an appeal on 5. 3. 1996 to the Director of Rural Development. Thereafter, the seniority was set aside by order dated 2. 8. 1996. The District Collector revised the Seniority List vide order dated 18. 10. 1996 and consequently 22 persons were promoted. But after one year, an application in O. A. No. 8298 of 1997 was filed, praying to quash the Seniority List. The learned Tribunal granted interim order on 21. 10. 1997, and thereafter, without considering the counter filed by the contesting party and the Government, further extended it by order dated 25. 3. 1998. At this stage, challenging the interim "order granted on 25. 3. 1998 the matter has come up before a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 6446 of 1998. The Division Bench referred the above question vide its order dated 15. 6. 1998 for an authenticated pronouncement on the subject. The matter has come up before us today.
(3.) THE main contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the High Court has power to entertain writ petitions against the final order of the Tribunal, so also against the interim orders/ex parte orders. Therefore, if any interim order/ex parte order is passed and extended further, pending decision of the main O. A. , the same can be challenged before this court, and it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the pendency of the main O. A. To substantiate the said contention the learned counsel relied and referred to paragraphs 90 and 91 in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, and also in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, The learned Senior Counsel further submits that this Court has got wide power to weigh and correct the errors committed by the Tribunals, and can also see that the orders have not been passed without following the procedure of law. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has been constituted under Article 323 (A) of the Constitution of India to adjudicate the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the public services. Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act) deals with the establishment of Administrative Tribunals and Benches thereof. Section 5 deals with the composition of Tribunals and Benches thereof. Section 6 deals with the qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members. Section 14 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Section 15 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals. Section 19 deals with the making out of applications before the Tribunals. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has got powers to grant interim orders subject to the conditions imposed under Section 24 of the Act, which runs as under: "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an application unless -- (a) copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made or proposed to be made; and (b) opportunity is given to such party to be heard in the matters provided that a Tribunal may dispense with the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) and make an interim order as an exceptional measure if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss being caused to the applicant which cannot be adequately compensated in money but any such interim order shall, if it is not sooner vacated, cease to have effect on the expiry of a period of fourteen days from the date on which it is made unless the said requirements have been complied with before the expiry of that period and the Tribunal has continued the operation of the interim order". The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the facts of the given case the writ petition cannot be thrown as not maintainable, as the interim order passed by the Tribunal has been extended without following the requirements under Section 24. Learned counsel further submits that no exceptional circumstance has been shown, nor the factual position has been ascertained by affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side, meaning thereby, in the instant case the main relief itself has been granted, on an interlocutory petition filed after one year, revising the Seniority List on 18. 10. 1996 and promoting 22 persons. He further submitted that the interim order of stay was extended. Thus, by this extended interim order the main relief itself has been granted pending the original application, which will disturb the entire administration. He submitted that as on date there was nothing to implement in the order and the prayer has become infructuous. Under these circumstances, certainly the order can be challenged before the High Court and the High Court can entertain the writ petition pending the main application before the Tribunal.;