AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2106/2025, titled Rinku Singh v. The President’s Secretariat & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and for want of necessary parties.
The above O.A. had been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:
“8. RELIEFS SOUGHT:
In view of the facts mentioned in para 4 above the applicant prays for the following relief(s): -
8.1The present O.A. may be allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2024 be quashed. Consequently, the applicant may be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.
8.2Cost of the proceedings be allowed.
8.3Any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper to secure the ends of justice may be passed.”
In the O.A., while invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner stated as under:
“2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
The applicant declares that the subject matter of the order against which he wants redress is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
The Order dated 31.05.2024, which has been challenged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, had been passed by the respondent no.2, that is, the Governor’s Secretariat, Arunachal Pradesh. The learned Tribunal, therefore, observed that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the Order of the Hon’ble Governor, an appeal lies to the Hon’ble President of India, being the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has availed of such remedy by filing an appeal, however, no action has been taken thereon, due to which the petitioner was constrained to approach the learned Tribunal. He submits that since the Appellate Authority is situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, the O.A. was maintainable before the Principal Bench of the learned Tribunal.
We are not impressed with the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the O.A., no prayer has been made against the Appellate Authority for seeking the consideration of the purported appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal has considered its territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the prayer sought before it. As the Order impugned in the O.A. was not passed by an authority within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of the learned Tribunal, therefore, it held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.