9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6899/69. Allegedly, he got his name enlisted in the list of candidates in connivance with one Mr. Harnadha Reddy, the then Junior Assistant of District Employment Exchange, Nellore. 3. Respondent was selected having been placed in Sl. No. 3 in the merit list. Alleged fraud played by the respondent together with the aforementioned Junior Assistant, District Employment Exchange was brought to the notice of Appellant No. 1 on 24.04.1979. As a proposal was made thereby to delete his name from the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange on 9.01.1979 for the post of Foresters, no offer of appointment was issued in his favour. 4. Respondent, thereafter, filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated 1.04.1981, a direction was made to conduct an enquiry on the said application. During pendency of the said original application itself, he filed a writ petition wherein an interim order was passed to consider his case for appointment. On or about 23.04.1982 pursuant to or in furthermore of the said interim order, an offer of appointment was issued to the respondent. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82, this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. The Parliament enacted the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to ensure equal opportunity for the unemployed people. Although there exists some controversy as to whether notification of services to an Employment Exchange is imperative in character or not, indisputably herein a requisition was made to the Employment Exchange. Names were sponsored by it keeping in view the seniority of the candidates with reference to their registration in the Employment Exchange. Respondent is said to have been registered only in the year 1976. His name, therefore, ordinarily could not have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange at the relevant point of time. Allegedly, a Junior Assistant in District Employment Exchange, Nellore had connived with the respondent in the matter of sponsoring of his name in the year 1979 although he was not entitled therefore. The Employment Exchange, therefore, sought to withdraw the sponsorship of the respondent. In absence of his name having been legally sponsored, the candidature of the respondent could not have been considered for appointment as a Forester. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the appreciation of evidence, should be left to be tied by the Special Tribunals constituted for that purpose. If and after the Special Tribunals try the preliminary issue in respect of such jurisdictional facts, it would be, open to the aggrieved party to take that matter before the High Court by a writ petition and ask for an appropriate writ. Speaking generally, it would not be proper or appropriate that the initial jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal to deal with these jurisdictional facts should be circumvented and the decision of such a preliminary issue brought before a High Court in its writ jurisdiction. We wish to point out that in making these observations, we do not propose to lay down any fixed or inflexible Rule; whether or not even the preliminary facts should be tried by a High Court in a writ petition, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case and upon the nature of the preliminary issue raised between the parties. Having regard to the circumstances of the present dispute, we think the court of appeal was right in taking the view that the preliminary issue should more appropriately be dealt with by the Tribunal. The appeal court has made it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue which can even by urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose and are denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted." 16. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCALE 262. 17. Two other aspects of the matter cannot also be lost sight of. Respondent was not appointed pursuant to selection made in his favour. No offer of appointment was issued by the appellant. He was appointed pursuant to an interim order passed by High Court. The High Court ordinarily should not have done so. 18. In Metro Marins and Anr. v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 478, this Court held: "9. Havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
