The petitioner sought quashing of Recruitment Rules amendments and a circular regarding promotional seniority. Raising a maintainability issue based on L. Chandra Kumar, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHRI KANWAL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Pankaj Yadav & Mr.D.V.S. Yadav, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay Singh, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
O R D E R % 10.02.2016 CM No.4979/2016
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1131/2016 & CM No.5068/2016
“ (i) issue a writ of certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned modification/amendment whereby a “note” was added in column 11 vide notification No. G.S.R. 943(E) dated 11.12.2003, wherein the amendment/modification was effected in the Recruitment Rules by the Respondent No.2 without any authority under the law.
Page 1 of 4
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned circular No.3 of F7(31)2003/PB-I/AD/Arch/Pt-II/223 dated 27.01.2016 whereby a Final Eligibility List of Architectural Assistants for promotion to the post of Asstt. Director (Arch.) issued by the Respondent No.2.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent for grant of promotional benefits to the Petitioner as Asstt. Director (Arch.) before any junior level official is considered for promotion for the said post.”
Page 1 of 4
seniority list issued on 31.12.2013. The petitioner made representation/objection vide letter dated 03.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 to respondent No.2 against the tentative eligibility list. Learned senior counsel of the petitioner further submits that respondent No.2 without considering any of the objections filed by the petitioner, issued the final seniority list on 27.01.2016.
“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the concerned High Court may be approached directly. All
Page 1 of 4
other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. 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.”
Dasti.
V.P.VAISH, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2016/ gm
Page 1 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable in light of the jurisdictional principles laid down in L. Chandra Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the present petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.Referred¶22
L. Chandra Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors., 1997(3) Scale
SHRI KANWAL KUMAR
UNION OF INDIA
V.P. VAISH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
