Himanshu Sharma and another ….. Union of India and others v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 17876 of 2023 Himanshu Sharma and another ….. Union of India and others Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC Order No. 02. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 18.07.2023 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central Government Counsel. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A. No. 306 of 2023 arising out of O.A. No. 536 of 2021; and to issue direction to opposite parties no.1 to 4 not to fill up the respective posts against the advertisement NORCET-2023 dated 12.04.2023 (under Annexure-XI to M.A.) till disposal of O.A. No. 536 of 2021 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack. 4. Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 19.05.2023 under Annexure-3 has been passed contrary to the order dated 20.01.1992 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Appendix-III under Rule-19(b) Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, which has been placed on record as Annexure-1. Thereby, the petitioner Page 1 of 4 has approached this Court for quashing of the same. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central Government Counsel vehemently contended that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot have any justification so as to cause interference by this Court. 6. This Court finds that the reliance placed on the order dated 20.01.1992 issued by the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 5 (6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to the following effect:- “In situations when a Division Bench is not available for dealing with urgent cases for admission and grant of interim orders, and the urgency is such that the matter cannot be deferred until a Division Bench becomes available, the Single Member Bench is authorized to take up such urgent for admission and grant interim orders subject to the condition that if the Single Member is not inclined to admit the matter he shall refer the matter for being placed before the appropriate Division Bench as soon as the same becomes available.” 7. On perusal of the aforementioned order, it is made clear that when a Division Bench is not available for dealing with urgent cases for admission and grant of interim orders, and the urgency is such that the matter cannot be deferred until a Division Bench becomes available, the Single Member Bench is authorized to take such urgent cases for admission and grant of interim orders subject to the condition that if the Single Bench is not inclined to admit the matter, the Single Bench shall refer the same for being placed before the appropriate Division Bench. It signifies two stages for admission of the original application filed by the applicant and also consideration of the M.A. application for grant of interim Page 2 of 4 order in connection with the said original application and that it also empowers the Single Bench to hear the matter in absence of the Division Bench and for any reasons if the Division Bench is not available, it can take up the matter for admission of original application as well as consideration of the M.A. for grant of interim order. But for any reason, if the Single Bench is not inclined to entertain the original application, in that case it has to defer the matter and refer the same to the Division Bench for admission. But there is no such restriction with regard to passing of interim order in M.A., particularly when the matter has already been admitted, counter affidavit has already been filed and the matter is otherwise ready for hearing by granting liberty to the applicant for filing of rejoinder affidavit. There is no dispute before this Court that O.A. (C) No. 536 of 2021 (Cuttack) has already been admitted by the Tribunal and in that case counter affidavit has already been filed, but the petitioner sought for filing of rejoinder affidavit, which was granted by the tribunal. But, in the meantime, since fresh advertisement was issued, the petitioner moved M.A. No. 306 of 2023, which was considered by the Single Bench of the tribunal, due to non-availability of Division Bench, rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2023. 8. Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Single Bench cannot and could not have rejected the M.A. but to have placed the matter before the Division Bench pursuant to the order dated 20.01.1992. But, when the Single Bench is empowered to consider the interim application by way of M.A. filed by the petitioner, in that case, the said Single Bench is not precluded to hear the same, rather restriction which Page 3 of 4 has been imposed in the order dated 20.01.1992 relates to the admission of original application but not on the interim application filed by the petitioner. In the case at hand, the stage of admission of the original application had already been crossed and counter affidavit has already been filed. The petitioner, on being asked for, has been granted time to file rejoinder affidavit. In that case, the interim application filed by way of M.A. can be adjudicated and decided by the Single Bench in absence of availability of the Division Bench. As such, there is no question of keeping the matter pending for consideration before the Division Bench in view of the order dated 20.01.1992. Needless to say, the Single Bench having passed the order by directing that the original application to be heard finally on 23.06.2023, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Single Bench of the tribunal in passing the order impugned so as to cause interference with the same. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Jul-2023 13:15:39 Page 4 of 4