Bench:
Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice P.R. Shivakumar
Issue:
Whether the rigorous procedure of CPC applicable on the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunals?
Facts:
The Puducherry government invited applications for post of Sub-inspectors for which 3 tests were to be cleared – physical measurement, physical efficiency, written exam.
The respondents cleared the first two tests but couldn’t take the written exam as it was conducted only in English. They filed an application against the section list. Only 2 parties were impleaded - Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Puducherry; and the Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters), Police Department, Puducherry. The selected candidates weren’t impleaded as parties.
The selected students also filed a petition to for impleadment as parties which were granted.
The applicants then filed for amendment in the original prayer as to challenge the appointment orders & impleading of selected candidates.
After taking into consideration the changes, the Administrative Tribunal took up the case for final hearing. The writ petitioner challenged the maintainability of the original applications as Union of India and the Union Territory of Puducherry were not impleaded despite being necessary parties. The objection was overruled.
The writ petitioner has now approached the HC against the orders of maintainability.
Petitioner's Contentions:
It was contended that original application filed before the Tribunal didn’t implead UOI/UT/ State government which were the necessary parties in the case. Also, impleadment of Secretary won’t make UOI/UT as the party in the proceedings. Therefore, the applications aren’t maintainable.
Respondent's Contentions:
It was contended that judgement of the HC is correct the Secrartary has been made a party to the proceedings and it is not necessary to implead the State Government.
Therefore, the original applications are maintainable,
Judgement:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the decision of the Administrative Tribunal regarding the maintainability of the original applications. The Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunals unless stated in their Act.
“Apart from the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, issued by the Central Government, the Central Administrative Tribunal itself has issued a set of rules known as the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Act. These Rules also do not contain any prescription as to how a respondent is to be described in the long and short cause title. As between themselves, the Act, the 1987 Rules and the 1993 Rules of Practice constitute a complete code and hence, there is no scope of importing a principle born out of the rigours of the Code into the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal.
It is clear that in cases, where the Secretary to Government is made a party, the failure to describe him as representing the Union Government, would only tantamount to mis-description and not to non impleadment.”
- Para 20, 27 (Mohamed Sheek Alavudeen v. The Central Administrative Tribunal And Ors.)
