Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an order of a single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application in O.A. No.648/92. The petitioner, a semi-skilled workman later appointed as Assistant Store Keeper against an OEP vacancy in Dehradun, alleged that he was denied consideration for promotion to a higher post in the OEP Section while juniors and seniors were promoted. The respondents contended that the petitioner was in the Maintenance Section and, though he had worked in the OEP Section when it was a cell, he was not eligible for consideration because all others were transferred along with posts to the Ordnance Factory while he remained in the Maintenance Section. The main legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the learned single Member of the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter under Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitioner argued that the single Member lacked jurisdiction to decide a promotion matter. The Court noted that under sub-section (1) of Section 5, the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal is empowered to classify classes of cases and make sitting arrangements of benches for convenient disposal of cases, and sub-section (2) enumerates categories of cases which members are competent to dispose of. The Court held that the allocation of which member would dispose of which matter is a matter of administrative convenience and does not relate to jurisdiction. The Court also referred to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that objections relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest; if parties omit to plead and raise the objection at a later stage, the unsuccessful party would be precluded from raising lack of jurisdiction. Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench consisting of a single member may also be competent to dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided by the single Member after considering the case on merits, it was no longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction or that the order suffered from initial lack of jurisdiction. It could at best be a case of improper disposal without touching the jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no lack of jurisdiction warranting interference.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Single Member Bench - Section 5, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Allocation of cases to benches by Vice-Chairman under Section 5(1) is administrative convenience, not a question of jurisdiction - A single member bench may be competent to dispose of matters assigned to it under Section 5(2). The petitioner challenged the single Member's competence to decide a promotion matter after the application was dismissed on merits. The Court held that the order was not vitiated by initial lack of jurisdiction because the Vice-Chairman had ordered the allocation and the matter was decided on merits. Held that the single Member had jurisdiction and no interference was warranted (Paras not mentioned). B) Civil Procedure - Objection as to Jurisdiction - Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Objections relating to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest; failure to do so precludes the unsuccessful party from raising lack of jurisdiction later - The Court applied this principle to proceedings before the Tribunal, noting that the petitioner participated in the proceeding and raised the jurisdictional objection only after dismissal on merits. Held that an objection to jurisdiction cannot be raised at a later stage after decision on merits (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a single Member of the Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to decide a matter relating to promotion; and whether an objection relating to jurisdiction can be raised after the matter has been decided on merits.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the single Member had jurisdiction to decide the matter; it was not a case of initial lack of jurisdiction; allocation of cases to benches under Section 5(2) is administrative convenience; objections to jurisdiction should be raised at earliest under Section 21 CPC; no lack of jurisdiction warranting interference.
Law Points
- Allocation of cases to benches by Vice-Chairman under Section 5(1) of Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985 is administrative convenience
- Single member bench competent to decide allocated matters
- Objection as to jurisdiction must be raised at earliest under Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Unsuccessful party precluded from challenging jurisdiction after decision on merits
- Lack of inherent jurisdiction distinct from administrative allocation
