T. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Member (J).:— This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant herein to declare the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Prakasam District, dated 3.12.1990 cancelling the caste certificate dated 27.10.1980 issued in favour of the applicant as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to pass such orders as may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain this O.A We though that it would be fit to hear both sides with regard to jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain this OA as a preliminary point and dispose of the same accordingly. We have heard Mr. M. Surender Rao, Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. N.V Ramana, advocate for the 1st respondent (Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, New Delhi.), and Mr. D. Panduranga Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents 2 to 4.
3. The facts to the extent that are necessary to adjudicate the question in issue are stated hereunder:—
The applicant herein is one of the candidates that appeared in the. Civil Service Examination that was held in the year 1981.
4. The applicant for the first time appeared for the Civil Service Examination in the year 1978 and in the year 1980 in the open competition. According to the applicant, he appeared for the said examination as a candidate belonging to Backward Class. There is no reservation for Backward class in the Civil Service Examination. When the applicant appeared for the open competitive examination for Civil Service, no Scheduled caste certificates were being issued to the people belonging to Beda Jangam, Budga Jangam and Mala Jangam communities in the region of Andhra Pradesh. When the officials started issuing Scheduled Caste Certificates, as the applicant belonged to the Beda Jangam caste which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of A.P he applied for the same after the year 1980. Detailed verification was made and the applicant was issued Beda Jangam caste certificate on 27.10.80 by the competent authority. Therefore, in the year 1981 when the applicant appeared for the Civil Service Examination, he showed his caste as Beda Jangam which is a scheduled caste. The. applicant got through the preliminary and the main examination. Before attending to the interview, the applicant was again asked to produce the caste certificate. The applicant again applied for the Beda Jangam caste certificate and he was given the caste certificate showing that he belongs to Beda Jangam caste on 16.3.82 after due inquiries. Even though the applicant was duly selected for the IAS from the reserved quota, without informing the applicant the reasons, the applicant was not sent for training though others who were selected were sent for training. The applicant after waiting for some lime, filed W.P No. 7548/1983 in the High Court of A.P with a prayer that he was entitled for being sent for training. Initially, interim order was, passed in favour of the applicant but later the same was modified by an order of “status quo”. Thee the Government seems to have speeded up the inquiry in the applicant's social status after the same was questioned by the Scheduled Caste Welfare Association. Then, the Collector, Prakaram. District conducted thorough inquiry in the concerned villages and confined, the applicant, his parents and relatives belong to Beda Jangam caste which is a Scheduled Caste, and submitted a report to the competent authority. Any how, the Scheduled Caste Welfare Association seems to have been satisfied with the report submitted by the District Collector on 21.4.83 referred to above that the applicant belongs to the Beda Jangam caste. So, the said Scheduled Caste Welfare Association made repeated representation to the concerned authorities and wanted inquiry tobe reopened. So, in view of the said representations, a second inquiry was ordered to ascertain the caste of the applicant viz., whether the applicant belongs to Beda Jangam caste which is a scheduled caste. A person by name Mr. Muni Venkatappa seems to have conducted the second inquiry. It is the grievance of the applicant that the said Mr. Muni Venkatappa is not the competent authority to conduct the inquiry and that the inquiry was conducted without notice to the applicant. The said Mr. Muni Venkatappa reported to the competent authority that the applicant did not belong to Beda Jangam caste which is a scheduled caste. Basing oh the said report of Mr. Muni Venkatappa, the Government of A.P issued G.O Ms. No. 51, dated 20.3.84 purporting to cancel the caste certificate issued to the applicant referred to earlier. The applicant questioned the said G.O Ms. No. 51 in Writ Petition No. 10302/84 on the file of the High Court of A.P, Earlier Writ Petition No. 7356/83 and the Writ petition No. 10302/84 jwere heard by the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P The Division Bench after considering all the questions involved in the issue, set-aside and quashed G.O No. 51, dated 30.2.1984 by its Judgment dated 24.12.1984 After the said decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the applicant was not allowed to enter into the IAS cadre by the Central Govt. The matter was carried to the, Supreme Court in CCA Nos. 2306 to 2308 of 1985, 2309 to 2310 of 1985 and 2518 to 2519 of 1985. The Supreme Court confirmed the Judgment of the High Court as per its Judgment dated 4.5.1988 leaving it open to the Government to cause a fresh inquiry with regard to the social status i.e, to the caste the applicant is said to belong. While the matter stood thus, the Government of India asked to the applicant to appear for training at Mussorie at his own expense without offering any stipend as was given to the IAS trainees. The applicant was under the impression that the exppnses at Mussorie would be minimum and in view the warning letter from the Government of India that if the applicant failed to join the foundation course at Mussorie, his candidature for IAS is liable to be cancelled, so the applicant joined the said IAS training at Mussorie. After completion of a week days training, the applicant felt that it would, be impossible for him to meet the exorbitant expenses in the training and left the training after giving a representation to the concerned explaining the circumstances that forced him to leave the training.
5. In view of the directions of the Supreme Court as per its Judgment dated 4.5.1988, the Government of A.P appointed a fresh Inquiry Officer who was the District Collector, Prakasam District to inquire and report about the social status of the applicant with regard to the caste the applicant belongs. After completion of the inquiry the District Collector, Prakasam District sent a report to the Government. On the basis of the report of the District Collector, Prakasam District, a notice dated 1.11.1988 was issued to the applicant asking the applicant to show cause why the caste certificate issued to the applicant should not be cancelled. The applicant gave a reply on 5.11.88 requesting the competent authority to furnish him a copy of the Inquiry report. After furnishing a copy of Inquiry report which was against the applicant, once again the applicant was asked by another notice dated 2.4.1989 to submit explanation, why the Inquiry report of the District Collector, Prakasam District that was submitted should not be accepted and the said caste certificate that was issued to the applicant be cancelled as he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. The applicant submitted his explanation on 29.5.1989 In the meanwhile, the report of the District Collector was accepted by the Government of A.P who is the 2nd respondent herein and an order dated 3.12.1990 was passed by the competent authority cancelling the caste certificate dated 27.10.1980 that was issued in favour of the applicant. So, the applicant had filed the present application to quash the order dated 3.12.1990 issued by the competent authority cancelling his caste certificate dated 27.10.1980 as illegal and arbitrary as already indicated above.
6. As already pointed out, it is the case of the respondents that this Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute with regard to the caste of the applicant and hence this OA is liable to be returned to the applicant for presentation before a proper forum for adjudication of the said dispute.
7. In view of the contention raised, it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of Article 323(A) of the Constitution of India:
“323A. Administrative tribunals - (1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and canditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
(2) A law made under clause (1) may—
(a) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals;
(c) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1);
(e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(g) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8. So, the intention in enacting Article 323 (a) of the Constitution of India is to enable the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred on it to constitute Administrative Tribunals with the required powers to adjudicate disputes with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government. So, in view of the enactment of Article 323 (a) of the Constitution of India, the Parliament had enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (No. 13 of 1985) and the same had come into force from the appointed date i.e, with effect from 1.11.85 Section 3(q) of the A.T Act defines “Service matters” in relation to the Government servants. Section 14 of the A.T Act defines jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, is extracted hereunder:
“14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to—
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defences services, being, in either case, a post filed by a civilian;
(b) all service matters concerning—
(i) a member of any All India Service; or
(ii) a person (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) a civilian (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence;
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to serice in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation (or society) or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
(2) The Central Government may, by Notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section
(3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations (or societies) owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation (or society) controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Govt. considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations (or societies).
(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this Sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation (or societies) all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to—
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation (or society); and
(b) all service matters concerning a person (other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) appointed to any service or post in connection with authority or corporation, (or society) and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs.”
9. The jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal and set-out in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Generally speaking, the Central Administrative Tribunal is conferred the jurisdiction, power and authority which are exercisable by the Civil Courts and the High Courts in relation to (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, (b) all service matters. The Central Administrative Tribunals certainly has got power to exercise jurisdiction over Members of All India Service, Members appointed to Civil Services of the Union or to any civil post under the Union and civilians in the defence services. The powers of the High Courts under Article 226, insofar as those are exercisable in relation to the service matters, stand conferred on the Tribunal established under the Act. The powers of other ordinary Civil Courts in relation to service matters to try all the suits of civil nature except suits of which their cognizance either expressly or impliedly barred, also stand conferred on the Tribunal. As laid down in 1989 (2) SLR 410 : 1989 (1) SLWR 583 (SC) (Union of India v. Parma Nanda), the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to exercise all the powers which the civil courts in a suit or the High Court in a writ proceedings could respectively exercise. The Tribunal can exercise any of the powers of a civil court or High Court by way of judicial review. The Tribunal is just a substitute to the civil court and the High Court in service matters. In AIR 1987 (1) SLR 203 (SC) (J.B Chopra v. Union of India), the Supreme Court has held that, the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute of the High Court had the necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with all questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution.
10. With this back ground, we have got to see whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to resolve the question in dispute. The words used in Section 14(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 viz., recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment” have got special significance when a dispute is raised with regards to caste at the time of recruitment or recruitment is over or when the incumbent to the office is actually appointed and working, and if the caste is one of the considerations for recruitment for reserved quota, the Tribunal has got power to decide the dispute with regard to caste also in our opinion, the words, “recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment has got to be given widest meaning for carrying out the intention of the Parliament in enacting Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals act. When caste is also in dispute in the matter of recruitment, it is matter that concerns recruitment. In view of Section 14(a) of the A.T Act, in our opinion, the said dispute comes within in the definition of service matter as laid down in Section 3(q) of the A.T Act and as such the Central Administrative Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the same. However, we make it clear when a person before-he has applied for any post seeks declaration with regard to his caste and the said declaration is in no way connected with the Application for the post then this Tribunal will not be having any jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter. In such type of cases, in our opinion, only civil courts or other forums may be having jurisdiction to decide the question with regard to caste of the said person as the said question is in, no way connected with “recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment”. As already pointed out in this case, the applicant herein is selected to IAS on the basis of his caste as Beda Jangam which is SC in A.P area. His recruitment as IAS Officer is very much connected to the social status of the applicant i.e, his caste. Caste and recruitment in this case are so interconnected. So the matter comes squarely within the provisions of Section 14(c) of, the Administrative Tribunals Act and we do not have any slightest doubt to come to the conclusion that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this matter.
11. In a decision reported in SLJ 1988 (2) (CAT) 497 (Dudh Nath Prasad v. Union of India) wherein the facts would go to show that the applicant claimed as belonging to Scheduled Caste and challenged his rejection for deputation under Colombo Plan. It will be relevant to extract the first two paragraphs of the said Judgment at page 500:
“This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for quashing Anncxure-I, whereby it was held that the applicant does not belong to Scheduled Caste community and also for a direction to the Government of India not to deny the deputation of the applicant for training under the Colombo Plan in financial studies and the decision already taken in this behalf may be implemented. A prayer has also been made that pending disposal of the application, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may be directed not to transfer, supersede, dismiss or otherwise deal with the applicant till the decision of this application.
(2) Thus, in the application a number of relief's have been prayed for but under rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an application shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided that they are consequential to one another. The question of supersession or transfer or deputation for training under the Colombo Plan are independent actions and they cannot be considered along with the question whether applicant is a member of the Scheduled caste community or not. Under such circumstances in this application we will confine our decision only to the question whether the applicant is a member of scheduled Caste Community”.
12. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nizir Ahmad, Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench speaking for the Division Bench had pronounced the above Judgment. From the said Judgment, it is quite evident, when the recruitment and the caste are so interconnected, that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question whether the particular Government servant belongs to particular caste, if caste is in dispute.
13. Another decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench reported in SLJ 1987 (2) (CAT) 189 (Vasantbhai Balchand Solanki v. Union of India) goes to show that it is open for this Tribunal to go into the caste status of Government servant if a dispute is raised about his caste status.
14. In view of the above position, we over rule the objection raised on behalf of the respondents and hold that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this application and decide the same on merits. As the learned counsel for the applicant states that there is urgency in disposal of this application the Registry is directed to list this O.A for final hearing on 12.3.1992 The respondents would be at liberty to file their counter if not already filed before 27.2.92 with a copy to the advocate for the applicant.
15. Order accordingly.