Dismissed

Shri Prashant v. Union of India through Chief Secretary of Post Office & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Oct 2024W.P.(C)/13917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of his selection to the Postman Cadre made on sports quota grounds. The Court held the dispute concerned recruitment to a Union civil post within CAT's exclusive first-instance jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Prashant Vs Union of India through Chief Secretary… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13917/2024

¶4

SHRI PRASHANT .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Shama, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY OF POST OFFICE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 03.10.2024 CM APPL. 58255/2024

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 13917/2024 & CM APPL. 58254/2024

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing a letter dated 15.04.2024 whereby his selection to the post of Postman Cadre was cancelled.

¶14

Petitioner was selected for the post of Postman Cadre on the basis of recruitment under sports quota vide letter dated 29.09.2023 through direct recruitment. As per the impugned cancellation letter, while scrutiny of sports documents issued by Taekwondo Federation of India, it was found that Taekwondo Federation was not recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India for the year 2018 for the sport of Taekwondo.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 13917/2024

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2024 at 10:52:56

¶18

It is evident from a plain reading of the writ petition and the prayer clause that the relief sought pertains to a challenge to the letter dated 15.04.2024, whereby selection of the Petitioner has been cancelled and is against Department of Post, Government of India and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that 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 ‘recruitment and matters concerning recruitment’ to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union. Matter relating to a challenge to appointment/selection would fall under Section 14(1) as a matter concerning recruitment and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, the remedy of the Petitioner will lie before the Central Administrative Tribunal as the only Court of first instance. This has been clearly held by this Court in Praveen Sharma v. U.P.S.C., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 2086. I may also allude to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145 and Rajeev Kumar and Another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 554, wherein the Supreme Court observed that in view of the authoritative pronouncement in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the High Court erred in directly entertaining the petition concerning service matters over which Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction.

¶19