Jyoti Singh JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
C.M. APPL. 9374/2020 (Early Hearing) & 13286/2020 (Early Hearing)
Both the applications for early hearing of the Petition are allowed and the Petition is taken up for hearing.
W.P.(C) 3334/2019
1. The legal controversy that arises for consideration is the maintainability of the present petition before this Court. It would be exposit here to give a narrative of short and uncontroverted facts, only to decide the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Petition.
2. Petitioner successfully qualified the Civil Services Examination in the year 1986 and was allocated Indian Police Service ('IPS') and assigned Haryana Cadre. On 01.10.2018, vacancy arose in the post of Director General Police (DGP), Haryana, pursuant whereto, State of Haryana, on 25.01.2019, sent a list of 11 eligible officers, who had completed 30 years of service, to UPSC for consideration and empanelment. On 18.02.2019, UPSC empanelled three IPS officers, but Petitioner was not amongst the three. Pursuant to empanelment by the UPSC, on 18.02.2019, Respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as DGP, by State Government of Haryana.
3. Petitioner in the present petition assails the empanelment dated 18.02.2019 made by UPSC and the subsequent appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP, State of Haryana vide Appointment Order dated 18.02.2019.
4. Appointment of Respondent No. 4 was initially challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No. 247/2019, in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court vide order dated 25.03.2019 disposed of the writ petition with the following order:
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the relevant material, we are not inclined to entertain the Article 32 petition. The petitioner may approach the jurisdictional High Court, if so advised.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
5. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for UPSC, at the outset, raises an objection to the maintainability of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is submitted that IPS is an All India Service, and thus Petitioner is amenable to the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court of 'first instance' for 'service matters' in light of the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is the Central Administrative Tribunal, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0261/1997 : (1997) 3 SCC 261. Reliance is placed specifically on Section 14 (1) of the Act in this regard. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Subhas Sharma, MANU/SC/1429/2002 : (2002) 4 SCC 145, where the Supreme Court, relying on L. Chandra Kumar (supra), held that the High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petition concerning service matters of employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya, as these matters directly come under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Attention of the Court is drawn to orders passed by different Benches of this Court, following L. Chandra Kumar (supra), declining to entertain petitions concerning service matters of employees of O........