Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Union Public Service Commission
14. A single Judge of this Court in the matter of Pranay Kumar Sen Vs. the Chairman, UPSC and
others in CWP No.5259 of 2002 relying on Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. Union of India and Another, 1988
(2) SLR 688; Pratap Chander Rout and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1987 LIC 104 and
K.Nagaraja and others Vs. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department and Others, AIR 1987
Andhra Pradesh 230 had held that the competitive examination is a condition precedent for appointment
to an All India Service and such an examination, therefore, is a part of process of recruitment. Perusal
of the definition of service matter, it is apparent that it is very wide and it is not to be considered
narrowly to limit its meaning strictly to the condition of service. Consequently, service matters would
include not only the conditions of service but also other incidental and ancillary matters and, therefore,
the process of selection for service would be governed by the word ‘service matters’.
15. The following extract of the above noted judgment Pranay Kumar Sen (supra) is relevant:
“6. Taking pleas from the word used under Article 323 (a) of Constitution for trail,
deliberately used the word recruitment and matters concerning in Section 14 and 28 of
the Act so as to indicate that the Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with
these matters and that the High Court in view of the specific provisions contained in
section 28, shall not have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the petition in which
questions relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment are raised.”
16. No cogent grounds have been raised by the petitioner to differ with the ratio of above noted
judgments. Therefore, there are no grounds to hold that the Central Administrative Tribunal does not
have jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner. Consequently the Central
Administrative Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide the controversies raised by petitioners regarding
re-evaluation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to interfere and exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed.
***
21