Litigants Must First Approach Administrative Tribunal In Matters Even Regarding Irregularities Concerning Recruitment To Posts Under Union And Not High Court Directly: Delhi High Court

BACKGROUND

The National Testing Agency conducted the examination for posts of Examiner of Patents & Designs Group A (Gazetted). The Preliminary and Mains Examinations were conducted between December 2023 to January 2024 and the interviews were conducted in April 2024. The candidates who could not appear in the Mains Examinations were given another chance to appear for the same on 5 February 2024. On 26 March 2024, the results of Mains Exams were declared and the final score card was released by the NTA on 15 June 2024.

The appellants (Petitioners before the Single judge bench) approached the High Court challenging the results of the Mains Exams as well as the score Card pointing out irregularities in the examination process. They alleged that there were issues with the allotment of centres, negative marking, answer key of Mains paper, cut-offs, results, interviews and merit lists. They sought quashing of result of the Mains Examinations, final score card and the final result. They also asked the Court to direct the Respondents to consider conducting the Mains Examination afresh.

The Single Judge directed the appellants to approach the Tribunal to have the issues addressed. Aggrieved by the judgement, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Division Bench.

Contentions of the Appellants:

Relying on the decision taken in T K Rangarajan v Government of Tamil Nadu, the Counsel for the Appellants Ms Anusree Kapadia contended that the Appellants had not challenged the conditions of service and were merely challenging a tainted public examination stating that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Moreover, it was asserted that a large number of people were involved and therefore the Tribunal would not be able to render justice. The Counsel further raised issues regarding negative marking, results, cut-off marks, reconducting of exams for a few students, etc.

Contentions of the Respondents:

Relying upon the decision in L. Chandra Kumar, the Respondents challenged the maintainability of the Petition arguing that as per Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning recruitment to any civil post under the Union and the Petitioners could not approach the Court.

Findings of the Court:

The Division bench analysed the issue as captured by the Single Bench and proceeded to answer all the arguments raised by the appellants segment wise. The court elaborately discussed the law laid down by the seven judge bench L. Chandra Kumar case and the establishment of administrative tribunals under Article 323-A.

The court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar wherein it was held,

“the Tribunals will 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 Tribunal concerned.”

The Court emphasized that the Central Administrative Tribunal would be the court of first instance in matters where the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate and in matters of such nature, High Courts could not be approached. It was observed that without approaching a Tribunal empowered under Section 14 of the AT Act to decide such matters, litigants were proscribed from approaching the High Court.

However, the Court also noted that in case the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act or any of its provisions was challenged, the litigants were entitled to approach the High Court without having to raise the issues before a Tribunal.

The Court further observed in response to a contention raised by the Counsel for appellants, that a large number of petitioners or applicants could not be a ground for the petitioners to approach the High Courts since there were several cases where hundreds of applicants had approached the Tribunal to address a common grievance. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal was empowered to adjudicate upon matters concerning more than one person under Rule 4(5)32 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Additionally, the Court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in T K Rangarajan case wherein the Court observed that in a “very very” exceptional case where the Tribunal would not be in a position to render justice, the Court could be approached rather than seeking redress from the Tribunal. It was also held that the exceptions carved out for certain cases could not be a ground to read against the dictum laid down in the seven judge bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar case.

In response to the contention of the appellant that only matters relating to recruitment of persons appointed to posts in connection with the Union would fell within the territory of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and not cases of persons who were yet to be appointed, it was held that it would not be a proper way of reading Article 323-A(1). The court stated that Article 323-A(1) empowers the Parliament to, by law, provide for adjudication, by Administrative Tribunals, of disputes and complaints which fall into one of the two categories envisaged therein. The first category is disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and the second category is disputes and complaints with respect to the conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. The words “appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union”, would ordinarily apply only to persons who have already been appointed. By providing for including complaints with respect to recruitment within the ambit of Tribunals created under Article 323-A(1), the Constitution, clearly envisages matters which deal with all aspects of recruitment to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the States to be adjudicated by Tribunals appointed under the said Article.

Regarding the arguments that NTA could not be regarded as the “agency” of the respondents and was an independent body and not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the court held that the issue was to be understood with reference to the concept of agency as understood in a contract. The 2023 Recruitment Notification, inviting applications for the post of Examiner of Patents and Designs and containing all details of the selection process, including holding of the examinations was issued by the office of the CGPDTM. All the details of the examination, including the mode of application, fees to be paid, relaxations available and the like were contained in the Notification. Hence, it was held that the examination was held by the CGPDTM and the mere fact that the NTA was assigned the job of conducting examinations would not alter its position.

Regarding the issues including negative marking, results, cut-off marks, reconducting of exams for a few students, etc., the Court held that the Tribunal was competent enough to adjudicate upon such issues.

Making these observations, the Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge asserting that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the Appellants should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Tittle: Parikshit Grewal & Ors versus Union of India & Anr.

Click Here ToDownload Judgement/Order