D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner has appeared for the selection of Divisional Accountant and Junior Accountant held by the Staff Selection Commission, Government of India, Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension. It is alleged that the petitioner had been successful and his name was in serial No. 138 while he comes at serial No. 8 among the schedule caste candidates. Despite being successful, no appointment letter was being issued to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) In the counter-affidavit, the question of maintainability has been raised apart from the objections to the merit of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sheo Shankar Tripathi contends that unless the petitioner is given appointment, it does not come within the purview of Central Administrative Tribunals Act and as such, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be taken away. In order to substantiate his contention, he relies on Article 323A of the Constitution and contends that it relates to the Government service. Unless a person is appointed, he is not in Government service. Therefore, in the present case when the matter is in the process of recruitment and the petitioner is seeking issue of an appointment letter, the petitioner is not in Government service amenable to the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. According to him, there cannot be inconsistency between the Act and Article 323A. In case there is inconsistency in the Act. in that extent it would be incompetent, void and ultra vires to that extent to Article 323A of the Constitution. Since the Article 323A prescribes Government service, therefore, all matters relating to recruitment cannot be brought within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one, however, appears on behalf of the respondents.;