Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting to edit or correct the online application form submitted by the petitioner and further seeking direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Analyst under the advertisement dated 08.02.2014 under the category of OBC instead of unreserved/open category and to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview scheduled on 27.02.2015 and 28.02.2015. Considering the urgency in the matter, the Court had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish the copy of the petition to the learned counsel, who normally appears for the respondents, accordingly Mr. M.S. Raghav has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition before this Court. Pressing into service, the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and the department wise classification of cases made under the Central Administrative Tribunals Rules of Practice, 1993, learned counsel Mr. Raghav submitted that it is only the Central Administrative Tribunal which would have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the present petition in view of Sec. 14 read with Sec. 28 of the said Act. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sarash Saini has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, : AIR 1997 SC 1125 to submit that the power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Article 32 of the Supreme Court, is a part of basic structure of the constitution and therefore the High Court also has the power and jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
(2.) In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions, made by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in the said Act. Sec. 14 of the said Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of Central Administrative Tribunal. The relevant part thereof is reproduced as under: - "14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. -(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court (***) in relation to - (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All -India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;" The Sec. 28 of the said Act reads as under: - "28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. - On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, (no court except - (a) the Supreme Court; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have), or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters."
(3.) It is pertinent to note that as per the department wise classification of cases made under the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Ministry of Human Resources Development has been included in the list of departments for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under the said Act and the Rules. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the Apex. Court while examining the constitutional validity of the said Act had held in case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), that: - "93.......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, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal." In view of the said specific observation made by the Apex Court and in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 14 read with Sec. 28, the Court has no hesitation in holding that it is not open for the present petitioner to directly approach this High Court by filing the instant petition overlooking the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is constituted to decide the cases relating to the recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to the post in question. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is required to approach the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal for ventilating his grievances and the present petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, the present petition is dismissed without examining the merits of the case on the ground of non -maintainability alone.;