B.Joshua Samuel vs. The Chairperson

Facts

The petitioner, B. Joshua Samuel, 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, to consider his representations dated May 18, 2022, March 25, 2024, and October 21, 2024. He sought promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner with effect from April 1, 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, excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts (except the Supreme Court) in matters relating to recruitment and service conditions. The Court found that directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion and granting the promotion itself fell within the purview of service matters over which the Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court could not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution for such a prayer. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition seeking a direction to consider a representation for promotion and to grant promotion, notwithstanding the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable as it did not involve a service dispute but solely sought consideration of his representation by the authorities. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not file a counter affidavit. However, the Court raised the issue of maintainability based on the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.