1998 (8) TMI 542 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can entertain a public interest litigation? Whether on the facts of this case the Tribunal has exceed its jurisdication in passing the impugned order? Held that - Appeal allowed. In the present case as already referred to the opinion of the Director of Medical Education in the matter of qualifications of the petitioner. There was no justification for the Tribunal to ignore the same. Hence the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering a technical question after brushing aside the opinion of the experts and the concerned authorities. There is no material whatever to accept the contention of the respondents that the petitioner wielded influence over the concerned authorities or that the action of the authorities was vitiated by malafides.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can entertain a public interest litigation.
2. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order on the facts of this case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can entertain a public interest litigation:

The court examined the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, particularly Sections 14, 15, 19, and 20, to determine the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Act specifies that a "person aggrieved" by an order can approach the Tribunal for redressal of grievances. The term "person aggrieved" was interpreted in the context of the Act and the facts of the case, drawing from precedents such as Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, which defined an aggrieved person as one who has suffered a legal grievance or has been wrongfully deprived of something.

The court emphasized that the Tribunal was constituted to provide speedy relief in service matters and was not intended to entertain public interest litigations (PILs) filed by strangers. The judgment referenced the Orissa Administrative Tribunal's decision in Smt. Amitarani Khuntia v. State of Orissa, which held that a private citizen or stranger with no existing right to any post cannot approach the Tribunal. The court agreed with this reasoning, concluding that the Tribunal cannot entertain a PIL at the instance of a total stranger, thus answering the first question in the negative.

2. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order on the facts of this case:

The court reviewed the qualifications of the petitioner, who had applied for the post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Surgical Gastroenterology. The petitioner possessed an M.S. Degree in General Surgery and had acquired "special training/experience" in Surgical Gastroenterology while working at S.C.B. Medical College, a recognized institution by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The petitioner's qualifications were validated by the Director of Medical Education and Training, and the Orissa Public Service Commission called him for a viva voce test.

The Tribunal had restrained the petitioner's appointment, reasoning that the petitioner did not possess the requisite two years of special training from an institution recognized by the MCI for giving special training. The Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous, noting that S.C.B. Medical College was a recognized institution and that the petitioner had acquired sufficient practical experience. The court also referenced the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Chandra, where similar qualifications were deemed sufficient.

The court concluded that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by disregarding the opinion of the Director of Medical Education and the concerned authorities. It was not for the Tribunal to independently investigate the qualifications once the relevant authorities had validated them. The court found no merit in the contention that the petitioner had unduly influenced the authorities or that the action was vitiated by malafides.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment and order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal was held to have no jurisdiction to entertain a PIL by a stranger and had exceeded its jurisdiction in questioning the petitioner's qualifications. There was no order as to costs.