7:55 PM
Appointment plea rejected by Madras bench, HC dismisses petition against transfer
Chennai: The
Madras bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed
an application from the general manager of the Integrated Coach
Factory (ICF), to constitute a fresh selection committee comprising
officials from traffic and accounts of the railway board and conduct a
fresh selection for the post of member (technical), Railway Claims
Tribunal.
Dismissing the petition from Abhay Kumar Khanna who was working as GM, ICF, the bench comprising judicial member K. Elango and administrative member Naresh Gupta held that CAT has no jurisdiction and competence over the issue.
Advocate A. Abdul Ajees, counsel for the petitioner, contended that Abhay Kumar Khanna had applied for the post of member (technical), in the Railway Claims Tribunal in response to an advertisement dated January 31, 2013 and attended an interview on April 13, 2013.
The selection committee was not constituted as per law. On May 23, 2013, he submitted a representation to the ministry of railways. As there was no response, the official filed this petition.
P. Srinivasan, senior standing counsel for railways, argued that CAT has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Citing a judgment of the HC where it was observed that the selection of a member (judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal was governed by the provisions of the Railway Claims Act, Srinivasan said CAT cannot go into the aspects of appointment of a person to the bench of another tribunal, also governed by a similar enactment. The Railway Claims Tribunal was on the same footing as that of CAT, he added.
Concurring, the bench dismissed the application.
HC dismisses petition against transfer
Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed a petition from a military engineer, challenging an order of the authorities, transferring him to Hyderabad.
Dismissing the petition from P.R. Anand Kumar, a division bench, comprising justices R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam, said, “The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is fairly well-settled.
The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with them as a matter of routine.”
Anand entered the military engineering services as surveyor assistant, grade-II in 1985. In November 2011, he was transferred from Chennai to Visakhapatnam. He approached the CAT, which allowed his petition and directed the authorities to pass fresh orders. After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities transferred Anand to Hyderabad on February 10, 2012. CAT again dismissed his second petition.
Dismissing the petition from Abhay Kumar Khanna who was working as GM, ICF, the bench comprising judicial member K. Elango and administrative member Naresh Gupta held that CAT has no jurisdiction and competence over the issue.
Advocate A. Abdul Ajees, counsel for the petitioner, contended that Abhay Kumar Khanna had applied for the post of member (technical), in the Railway Claims Tribunal in response to an advertisement dated January 31, 2013 and attended an interview on April 13, 2013.
The selection committee was not constituted as per law. On May 23, 2013, he submitted a representation to the ministry of railways. As there was no response, the official filed this petition.
P. Srinivasan, senior standing counsel for railways, argued that CAT has no jurisdiction to decide the issue and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Citing a judgment of the HC where it was observed that the selection of a member (judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal was governed by the provisions of the Railway Claims Act, Srinivasan said CAT cannot go into the aspects of appointment of a person to the bench of another tribunal, also governed by a similar enactment. The Railway Claims Tribunal was on the same footing as that of CAT, he added.
Concurring, the bench dismissed the application.
HC dismisses petition against transfer
Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed a petition from a military engineer, challenging an order of the authorities, transferring him to Hyderabad.
Dismissing the petition from P.R. Anand Kumar, a division bench, comprising justices R. Banumathi and T.S. Sivagnanam, said, “The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer is fairly well-settled.
The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with them as a matter of routine.”
Anand entered the military engineering services as surveyor assistant, grade-II in 1985. In November 2011, he was transferred from Chennai to Visakhapatnam. He approached the CAT, which allowed his petition and directed the authorities to pass fresh orders. After withdrawing the earlier order, the authorities transferred Anand to Hyderabad on February 10, 2012. CAT again dismissed his second petition.
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment