CG State Police Officers Association vs Union of India and Others

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.—By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Institution India, the petitioner/association has challenged the constitutional validity of Indian Police Services (Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2011 (for short "the Rules of 2011), published vide notification dated 29th August, 2011 (Annexure p-1). At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India as well as learned counsel for the State have raised objection with regard to the very maintainability of the writ petition on the submission that there exists an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "C.A.T.") for redressal of grievance, including challenge to the validity of amendment in the Rules of 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon firstly on the submission that the petitioner/association challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment in the Rules of 2011, therefore, the C.A.T. would have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and secondly that the association has filed writ petition in representative capacity to represent the cause of the officer of State Police Service, who do not hold any post under the Union of India. Therefore., at their instance, no petition can be filed before the CAT.

Submissions made in support of maintainability of the writ petition, are not tenable in law in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, In para-93 of its judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:

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 set-up, 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 High Court concerned may be approached directly. All 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 Tribunal concerned.

The aforesaid well settled legal position was again reiterated in the case of Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others, The Supreme Court held as under:

In view of such repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which CAT has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a court of first instance in respect of their service disputes for adjudication of which CAT has been constituted.

Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the challenge to the validity of the Recruitment Rules may not be within the domain of the jurisdiction of the C.A.T., if we may say so, is unfounded and has no basis.

The other submission that as the petitioner/association represents State Police Officers, therefore, at their instance, petition would not be maintainable before the CAT, deserves rejection at the threshold in the light of the provision contained in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short "the Act of 1985"). The provision contained in Section 14 of the Act of 1985 is wide enough not only to bring within the jurisdiction of the CAT, service matters concerning the category of employees enumerated in clause (b) & (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, but also in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil service post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in neither case, a post filled by a civilian, as specifically enumerated in clause (a). The petitioner/association may be representing the State Police Officers, who at present, are occupying post under the civil crevice of the State, nevertheless, challenge in the writ petition is to the validity of rules relating to recruitment and, is therefore, clearly within the mischief of provision contained in Section 14(1)(a) of the Act of 1985. The provision is couched widest possible words. Therefore, even if the members of the petitioner-association may not be holding any post under All India Service, what they seek to challenge before this Court by way of this writ petition is the validity of recruitment rules, which certainly falls within the ambit of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act of 1985. The challenge in the writ petition, without any doubt, relates to recruitment and in, any case, matter concerning recruitment to All India Service. The petitioner-association, therefore, is required to first approach the CAT. They would be at liberty to do so now. The petition is accordingly finally disposed of.