MANU/SC/0204/2023

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2023(2)C TC 695, 2023(3)ESC 606(SC ), [2023(178)FLR186], 2023 INSC 210, (2023)IILLJ255SC , 2023(3)SC ALE541,
(2023)5SC C 706, [2023]2SC R59, (2023)2UPLBEC 896

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1587/2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 530/2022)
Decided On: 03.03.2023
Union of India (UOI) Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.,
Kanu Agarwal, Rajat Nair, Anukalp Jain, Adit Khorana, Aakanksha Kaul, Advs. and Arvind
Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondents/Defendant: Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR, Vyom
Raghuvanshi, Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Hrishikesh Baruah, AORs, Apoorva Jain,
Adv., Himanshu Shekhar, AOR, Parth Shekhar and Shubham Singh, Advs.
Case Category:
SERVICE MATTERS
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Leave granted
2 . Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated
23.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No. 407/2020,
by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has set aside order
dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
Principal Bench, New Delhi by which the learned Principal Bench of the Tribunal
transferred Original Application (OA) No. 331/109/2020 filed by the original writ
Petitioner, from the Allahabad Bench (Nainital Circuit Bench) to the Principal Bench,
New Delhi, the Union of India has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are under:
3.1 That the contesting Respondent No. 1 herein - original writ Petitioner filed
original application (OA) before the Nainital Circuit Bench, CAT with the
following prayers:
a. To call for records and issue appropriate direction/order for quashing
present system of 360 degree appraisal being used in empanelment of
officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in Central
Government, being arbitrary, unreasonable, in violation of principles of
natural justice, being in supersession of statutory Rules and finding of
Parliamentary Committee Report.

09-12-2024 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

 b. To restrain the Respondents from filling up the posts of Joint
Secretary/equivalent to Joint Secretary rank and also posts above in
rank of Joint Secretary in Central Government, through contract
system, in future.
c. To set aside all those provisions of present Central Staffing Scheme,
governing constitution of and evaluation by Expert Panel for the
purpose of empanelment at Joint Secretary level in Government, issued
vide O.M. 36/77/94-EO Central (SM-1)" date 05.01.1996 and modified
subsequently, being arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of
natural justice and in violation of basic federal structure enshrined into
the Constitution.
d. To direct the Respondents to remove huge artificial time lag created
between empanelment of officers of different services and between
same levels in Central Government and State Government, in case of
All India Service Officers.
e. To direct the Respondents to consider the case of Applicant for
empanelment to the level of Joint Secretary in view of fulfillment of all
the eligibility criteria regarding completion of requisite number of years
of service and elevation into Level-14 of Pay Matrix; or alternatively,
issue directions to Respondents not to reject abovementioned case of
Applicant, on any ulterior/subjective/oblique consideration, and decide
the same objectively, on merit, facts and in accordance with law only.
f. To order and appropriate investigation so as to fix responsibility into
various irregularities into recruitment process of Joint Secretary rank
officers through contract system, taken place in the year 2019, in view
of irregularities brought out in para 3.5 of factual matrix.
3.2. That thereafter, the Union of India filed transfer application Under Section
25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act, 1985) seeking transfer of OA
filed by the writ Petitioner from Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench,
New Delhi. That by order dated 04.12.2020, the Chairman of the Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, ordered transfer of the said OA to the Principal
Bench, New Delhi by observing that:
A perusal of the prayer in the O.A. discloses that the very procedure for
empanelment for the post of Joint Secretary is sought to be assailed.
The matters of this nature have their own impact on the very
functioning of the Central Government. It is felt that the O.A. deserves
to be heard by Principal Bench. Since the hearings are taking place
through video conferencing, no prejudice are taking place through
video conferencing, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent in
the P.T., i.e. applicant in the O.A. also'
3.3. The order dated 04.12.2020 transferring OA No. 331/109/2020 from
Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench, New Delhi came to be challenged
by the original writ Petitioner - original applicant before the High Court of
Uttarakhand. It was submitted on behalf of the original writ Petitioner before
the High Court that what was challenged in the OA was the recruitment
selection process for the post of Joint Secretary. He was also aggrieved of the
fact that although eligible candidates were available for the post of Joint
09-12-2024 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School
 Secretary, within the All-India Services, a policy decision has been taken by the
Central Government that the post of Joint Secretary would be filled by hiring
persons on contractual basis for a period of three to five years and the said
policy decision would adversely affect the rights of the persons who are in the
All-India Services. It was also submitted on behalf of the original writ Petitioner
- original applicant that the ground on which the Union of India sought transfer
of OA that, since the original writ Petitioner has challenged a policy decision
and since the policy decision has "nationwide repercussion", therefore, the OA
deserves to be transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi, is untenable. It
was submitted that if the Parliament were of the opinion that issues of "national
importance" need to be decided only by the Principal Bench, a provision would
have existed in the Administrative Tribunals Act, debarring other Benches of
CAT from hearing issues of "national importance" or having "nationwide
repercussion." However, there is no such bar contained in the Administrative
Tribunals Act, preventing other Benches of CAT, which are considered to be
equivalent to the Principal Bench, from hearing or from examining a policy
decision of the Central Government. It was submitted that all the Benches
constituted Under Section 5 of the Act, 1985 would have equal jurisdiction.
3.4. The petition was opposed on behalf of the Union of India. The Union of
India challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttarakhand to
entertain the writ petition. It was submitted on behalf of the Union of India that
since all the relevant files and papers are at New Delhi the case should be
transferred to New Delhi. It was also the case on behalf of the Union of India
that since no cause of action had arisen in Uttarakhand, the Nainital Circuit
Bench does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. It was
submitted that as the policy was framed in New Delhi, the names were invited
for selection in New Delhi, the selection process begins and ends in New Delhi,
therefore, only the Principal Bench at New Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to
hear the OA. It was also submitted that since the relevant files are lying in New
Delhi and since the relevant witnesses would be available in New Delhi, it
would be in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Principal Bench,
rather than keeping the case pending before the Nainital Circuit Bench. It was
lastly submitted that since the decision with regard to a policy decision of the
Central Government would have nationwide repercussions, therefore, only the
Principal Bench would be the suitable bench for deciding the validity of the
policy decision. Therefore, it was submitted that the Chairman has rightly
transferred the OA from the Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in
exercise of powers Under Section 25 of the Act, 1985. In the rejoinder, it was
the case on behalf of the original writ Petitioner as regards the cause of action,
that part cause of action has arisen in Uttarakhand as the names of the eligible
candidates for the post of Joint Secretary are called from the States; thus, the
names are recommended by the States; the service records of the eligible
candidates are with the State and the service records are forwarded by the
State. Moreover, as the decision to appoint the Joint Secretaries on contractual
basis adversely affects his right of consideration for the post of Joint Secretary,
hence, the impact of the policy decision deprives his right in the State of
Uttarakhand and therefore, a part of cause of action has arisen in the State of
Uttarakhand and therefore, the Nainital Circuit Bench has jurisdiction to hear
the OA.
3.5. That thereafter, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, 1985
and following the decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v.
09-12-2024 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School
 Union of India MANU/SC/0261/1997 : (1997) 3 SCC 261, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order dated 04.12.2020 passed
by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by observing that
there is no requirement of law that a policy decision must, necessarily, be
challenged before the Principal Bench and that there is no provision under the
Act, 1985 that a challenge to a policy decision can be heard only by the
Principal Bench.
3.6. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, Union of India has preferred the present appeal.
4 . Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of
India has vehemently submitted that as such the High Court of Uttarakhand has erred in
entertaining the writ petition. It is submitted that as such no cause of action has arisen
within the territory of Uttarakhand High Court, the Uttarakhand High Court lacked the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the order passed by the
Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Heavy reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as well as
on the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay
MANU/SC/0015/2022 : (2022) 3 SCC 133.
4.1. In the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) after considering and following the
decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), it is specifically
observed and held that "all decisions of Tribunals created Under Article 323A and Article
323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls." It is submitted that
before this Court an identification question arises. That before this Court in the case of
Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) the High Court at Calcutta set aside the order passed by
the Principal Bench, New Delhi transferring the OA and its files from the Calcutta Bench
to the Principal Bench (New Delhi). That it is observed and held by this Court that the
Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General heavily relied upon paragraphs 15 to 17.
4.2. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions it is
vehemently submitted by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General that the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand is wholly
without jurisdiction.
4.3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has made elaborate submissions on
merits also, namely, on the powers of the Chairman conferred Under Section 25 of the
Act, 1985.
5 . Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original
writ Petitioner. On the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India that the High
Court of Uttarakhand would have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition
challenging the decision of the Chairman, CAT, to transfer the OA from Nainital Circuit
Bench to Principal Bench, New Delhi, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Shyam Divan,
learned Senior Advocate that Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India any High
Court can exercise jurisdiction Under Article 226 provided a part cause of action has
arisen in its jurisdiction irrespective of whether the authority or government which
passed the order is not located within the jurisdiction of the said High Court. Thus,
there can be no doubt that the High Court can exercise the powers Under Article 226, if
the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in the territorial jurisdiction of that High

09-12-2024 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

Court.
5.1. It is submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar
(supra) while recognising the jurisdiction of a High Court under whose jurisdiction the
Tribunal falls, may not be read to be limiting the jurisdiction of other High Court Under
Article 226(2), if otherwise available. It is submitted that the decision of this Court does
not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court under whose jurisdiction the Tribunal
falls. It is submitted that the judgment ought not to be read as constricting the scope of
Article 226(2). Therefore, to this extent the decision of this Court in the case of Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (supra) may require reconsideration.
5.2. It is further submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate that under
the Constitutional scheme, the remedies Under Article 226 and Article 227 are extremely
valuable remedies available to citizens where they reside or carry on business or are
posted. The scheme does not require citizens to come exclusively all the way to Delhi to
seek redressal. Thus, limiting the remedy Under Article 226 is contrary to the spirit of
the Constitution, contrary to the spirit and principle of access to justice and contrary to
the basic structure of the Constitution which enables judicial review across the country
and not at one concentrated location.
5.3. It submitted that this Court, by way of a judicial order, ought not to take away
jurisdiction from other high courts which are otherwise empowered Under Article 226(2)
to entertain a Writ Petition against the order of a Tribunal located in the territory
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said high courts. It is further submitted that if
such an interpretation is taken to its logical conclusion, then it would result in undue
hardship and inconvenience to the employees of the central government itself who are
posted across the country.
5.4. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate has taken us to the historical
background of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the development of the law
on the jurisdiction of the High Courts including the statement of objects and reasons to
the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and the remarks of the then Law
Minister at the time of introducing the amendment.
5.5. It is submitted that in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Kusum
Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., MANU/SC/0430/2004 : (2004) 6
SCC 254, which was after the introduction of Article 226(2), has observed and held that
the High Court would have jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises in its
jurisdiction irrespective of location/residence of the authority.
5.6. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Alchemist Ltd. and Anr. v. State Bank
of Sikkim and Ors., MANU/SC/1290/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 335, noting the
development of law in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts Under
Article 226 has held that "the legislative history of the constitutional provisions,
therefore, makes it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a
writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which
cause of action in whole or in part arises."
5.7. It is further submitted that the observations made by this Court in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar (supra) that all decisions of tribunals would be subject to scrutiny
before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal
concerned falls, is not an exclusion of the jurisdiction of the other high courts which
may have jurisdiction, particularly, Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. It
is submitted that therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Alapan
09-12-2024 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School
Bandyopadhyay (supra) may require reconsideration.
5.8. In support of his above request, he has made following submissions:
(i) The judgment of this Court in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra)
arose out of an order passed by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal
exercising powers Under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
transferring the O.A. filed by the Respondent therein from the Calcutta Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. The
said Transfer Order was quashed by the Calcutta High Court by allowing the
Writ Petition filed by the Respondent therein.
(ii) The Order of the Calcutta High Court was challenged by the Union of India
on the ground that a challenge against the order passed in the Transfer
Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New
Delhi, was maintainable only before the High Court of Delhi as the Principal
Bench of the Tribunal lies within its territorial jurisdiction.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court, referring to paragraph 99 of the judgment in L.
Chandra Kumar (supra), held that any decision of the Tribunal can only be
subjected to scrutiny before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose
jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. Consequently, it was held that the
jurisdiction lies with the High Court of Delhi since the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal is located at New Delhi.
5.9. It is submitted that the relevant paragraphs from the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) are reproduced herein below:
3 6 . In view of the reasoning adopted the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra
Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0261/1997 :
(1997) 3 SCC 261: 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] held Section 28 of the Act and the
"exclusion jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis
of Articles 323-A and 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the
High Courts Under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court Under Article 32, of
the Constitution, was held unconstitutional besides holding Clause 2(d) of
Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the same extent, as
unconstitutional.
37. Further, it was held thus: ( L. Chandra Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v.
Union of India, MANU/SC/0261/1997 : (1997) 3 SCC 261: 1997 SCC (L&S)
577], SCC p. 311, para 99)
99.... The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts Under Articles
226/227 and upon the Supreme Court Under Article 32 of the
Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and
Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers
conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals
created Under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of
statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls.

09-12-2024 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

 (emphasis supplied)
38. When once a Constitution Bench of this Court declared the law that "all
decisions of Tribunals created Under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the
Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls", it is
impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The
expression "all decisions of these Tribunals" used by the Constitution Bench will
cover and take within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in
the matter of transfer of original applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to
another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise of the power Under Section 25 of the
Act.
39. In other words, any decision of such a Tribunal, including the one passed
Under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a
Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned
falls. This unambiguous exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while
deciding the jurisdictional High Court for the purpose of bringing in challenge
against an order of transfer of an original application from one Bench of
Tribunal to another Bench in the invocation of Section 25 of the Act.
40. The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a
Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into
the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction
to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. We are
of the considered view that taking another view would undoubtedly result in
indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when a
decision passed Under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question
especially in cases involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of
different High Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by the
Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
5.10. It is submitted that the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) was
dealing with a challenge to the constitutional validity of Article 323-A(2d), Article 323-
B(3d) of the Constitution of India and Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 which excluded jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Under Article 32 and of
the High Courts Under Article 226. The final conclusion reached by the Constitution
Bench in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) at paragraph 99, was that:
(a) the power of Judicial Review guaranteed Under Article 32 and Article
226/227 is part of the inviolable basic structure of our constitution.
(b) the provisions under challenge were declared unconstitutional to the extent
that they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court
Under Article 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution of India respectively.
(c) However, it was held that all service matters must at the first instance go to
the Administrative Tribunal and upon the tribunal delivering the judgment the
same could be subjected to a challenge under the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
5.11. It is submitted that judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) ought not
to be read to have held that only the High Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the
tribunal falls will have jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition against the order of the
09-12-2024 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School
said tribunal.
5.12. The effect of the judgment in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is that only the High
Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls would have jurisdiction to
entertain a Writ Petition against the order of the said Tribunal.
5.13. It is submitted that as is clear from the Section dealing with the development of
law relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts, the intent and purpose
behind adding Clause (2) Under Article 226 would be defeated if paragraph 99 of L.
Chandra Kumar (supra) is interpreted in such a manner.
5.14. It is further submitted that the power of judicial review is an integral and
essential feature of the Constitution and even a constitutional amendment cannot
exclude the power of the high courts and the Supreme Court to exercise their power of
judicial review and this power can never be ousted.
5.15. It is respectfully submitted that this Court, by way of a judicial order, ought not
to take away jurisdiction from other high courts which are otherwise empowered Under
Article 226(2) to entertain a Writ Petition against the order of a Tribunal located in the
territory beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said high courts.
5.16. It is submitted that under the Constitutional scheme, all twenty-five High Courts
have equivalent jurisdiction, and no discrimination or special treatment is envisaged to
any particular High Court. This is one of the facets of independence of judiciary.
5.17. It is further submitted that if such an interpretation is taken to its logical
conclusion, then it would result in undue hardship and inconvenience to the employees
of the central government itself who are posted across the country. For example, if an
application were to be filed by an aggrieved employee before the Ernakulam Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, and an Order for its Transfer to another Bench were
to be passed by the Principal Bench at Delhi, the aggrieved would be forced to travel all
the way from Ernakulam to Delhi to challenge the Transfer Order and contest the case.
As already submitted above, this would defeat the very purpose of inserting Article
226(2) into the Constitution with the specific intent of providing a cheap, effective and
efficacious remedy in law at the doorstep of the aggrieved person.
5.18. It is therefore prayed that the decision of this Hon'ble Court rendered in Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (supra) case ought to be reconsidered in light of the submissions made
above.
6. Regard being had to the important issue raised by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and the submissions made by Shri
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and having gone through the judgment(s) and
order(s) passed by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Alapan Bandyopadhyay
(supra) and that the issue involved is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Courts and the effect of introduction of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India
and the statement of the Law Minister while introducing Article 226(2) of the
Constitution referred to hereinabove and that the issue involved affects a large number
of employees and is of public importance, we think it appropriate that the matter
involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a
challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi should
be considered by a Larger Bench. Let the registry place the matter before the Chief
Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the aforesaid issue is
resolved at the earliest.
09-12-2024 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School
 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

09-12-2024 (Page 9 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School