S.Gnanashanmugam vs. The Chairperson

Facts

The petitioner, S. Gnanashanmugam, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, the Chairperson of CBIC and the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Chennai Zone, to consider his representations dated 18.05.2022, 25.03.2024, and 22.10.2024. He sought promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner with effect from 1st April 2019, with consequential benefits, by extending the 4 percent reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) as per DoPT OMs and Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner argued that the case did not involve service disputes but merely sought consideration of his representation.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts (except the Supreme Court) in matters relating to recruitment and service conditions. The Court found that the petitioner's prayer, which included a direction to grant promotion, fell squarely within the ambit of service matters. Therefore, the High Court could not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the respondents to consider the representation or grant the promotion. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, if advised.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition seeking a direction to consider a representation and grant promotion in a service matter, notwithstanding the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the present case did not involve any service disputes as such, and the prayer was solely for the consideration of his representation by the authorities. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable. Respondents' argument: The respondents, through the Court's query, raised the issue of maintainability, pointing out that jurisdiction in service matters lies exclusively with the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 28 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of other courts in such matters.