Delhi High Court – Orders
Anurag Pathak vs Chairman Staff Selection Commission on 3 April, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4258/2025 and CM APPL. 19700/2025, CM APPL.
19701/2025
ANURAG PATHAK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhijit Anand and Ms. Tisha
Kaushik, Advocates.
versus
CHAIRMAN STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr.
Atishay Jain, Mr. Sudhanshu
Sharma and Ms. Deepanshi Gupta,
Advocates with Mr. Rajat Rajoria
Singh, G.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 03.04.2025
1. By a notice dated 24.06.2024, the respondent – Staff Selection
Commission [“SSC”] invited applications for filling up various Group
‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts in different
Ministries/Departments/Organizations of Government of India and
various Constitutional Bodies/Statutory Bodies/Tribunals, etc. The
petitioner challenges an answer key published by the SSC in respect of a
test held as part of the selection process pursuant to the Combined
Graduate Level Examination – 2024.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal [“Tribunal”] admittedly has
jurisdiction over recruitment to posts under the Union of India. The
W.P.(C) 4258/2025 Page 1 of 4
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 03/04/2025 at 22:25:34
judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,
[(1997) 3 SCC 261, decided on 18.03.1997], clearly holds that litigants
must first approach the Tribunal in matters falling within its jurisdiction,
and the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may
be invoked only after the Tribunal’s decision.
3. The judgment in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) has been followed in
several decisions, including the recent decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Parikshit Grewal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [LPA
971/2024, decided on 27.09.2024], in which the Division Bench has made
the following observations.
“1. It is a matter of some discomfiture to this Court that, nearly
three decades after seven Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court
clearly held, in the near-iconic decision in L. Chandra Kumar v
UOI [(1993) 3 SCC 261], that all matters which lay within the
province of the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of
Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would have to
be agitated before the Tribunal and that the High Court could not
act as a court of first instance in such cases, petition after petition
is still preferred in the High Court, in clear violation of the
judgment. Every possible argument in the book is pressed into
service, to somehow avoid L Chandra Kumar. Exceptions, not to
be found either in Section 14 of the AT Act or in the judgment in L
Chandra Kumar, are sought to be read into it by implication. In
the process, both Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India
are consigned to oblivion.
2. This is yet one other such case, in which the appellants have
sought to avoid approaching the Tribunal and have petitioned this
Court, in a matter which clearly falls within Section 14 of the AT
Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court has, in a detailed and
well considered judgment, clearly disapproved the attempt, and
has dismissed the petition as not maintainable in view of L
Chandra Kumar. Instead of approaching the Tribunal, as they
could, and should, have, the appellants have sought to appeal
against the decision of the learned Single Judge. Of course, they
are certainly entitled to appeal; but, in the process, the chance of,
perhaps, obtaining relief from the right forum, is frittered away.
W.P.(C) 4258/2025 Page 2 of 4
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 03/04/2025 at 22:25:34
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified, in terms as unequivocal as
could be, that it would not be open to a litigant to approach the
High Court in matters relating to the areas of law in which the
Tribunal concerned is constituted, and that the Tribunal would
continue to act as the court of first instance in all such matters, the
only exception being where the very legislation under which the
Tribunal is constituted is challenged. In other words, save and
except for cases in which the litigant challenges one or the other
provision of the AT Act, it is not open to the litigant to approach
the High Court in the first instance, in respect of matters which the
Central Administrative Tribunal is competent to adjudicate; in
other words, in respect of matters which fall within the purview of
Article 14 of the Constitution. In all such matters, the Central
Administrative Tribunal would be the only court of first instance,
available to the litigant.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
14. Thus, the position in law is clear as crystal. All matters, which
fall within the purview of Section 14 of the AT Act have first to be
agitated before the Tribunal. It is the Tribunal alone which can
entertain these matters, as a court of first instance. The litigant is
completely proscribed from approaching the High Court in such
matters, without first approaching the Tribunal. The only
circumstance in which the litigant can approach the High Court,
without first approaching the Tribunal, is where the litigation
challenges the vires of the AT Act itself, or of one or the other of its
provisions.
15. It is completely befuddling, therefore, to see petitions, which
clearly fall within the scope and ambit of Section 14 of the AT Act,
being directly filed in the High Court. Going by the number of such
petitions which are still coming up before this Court itself, the
malaise is reaching endemic proportions. Without meaning any
disrespect to High Courts which may choose to entertain such
petitions, these stray examples, if any, cannot derogate from the
position in law so unequivocally stated by seven Hon’ble Judges of
the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
W.P.(C) 4258/2025 Page 3 of 4
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 03/04/2025 at 22:25:35
4. The only submission of Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that this Court in Shubham Pal and Ors. v. Staff Selection
Commission and Anr., [W.P.(C) No. 16593/2023, judgment dated
16.02.2024], has entertained a writ petition in respect of an erroneous
answer key in a recruitment exercise conducted by the SCC. A copy of
the judgment has been handed over, and it is evident that the question of
Tribunal’s jurisdiction was neither raised nor discussed. The said
judgment is, therefore, of little assistance to the petitioner.
5. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra
Kumar (supra), as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in
Parikshit Grewal (supra), I am of the view that the petitioner’s remedy
lies, at first instance, before the Tribunal.
6. The writ petition, alongwith the pending applications, is, therefore,
dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.
7. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 3, 2025
uk/SD/
W.P.(C) 4258/2025 Page 4 of 4
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 03/04/2025 at 22:25:36
[ad_1]
Source link