Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Friday ruled out jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) over a plea challenging fresh selection process for 350 posts of Probationary Officers and 1500 Banking Associates in J&K Bank.
Underscoring that the CAT was lacking jurisdiction under relevant clauses of section 14 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act in the instant case, a bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magarey admitted the petition to hearing.
While Ravi Abrol accepted post admission notice on behalf of J&K Bank, government advocate Salad Ashraf accepted it on behalf of J&K government.
While listing the petition for final hearing on August 20, the court asked the parties to complete the pleadings so that the arguments in the case were concluded and the matter was decided finally.
The moot question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction over the matter in view of the application of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act to J&K. The court gave its ruling after hearing Advocate General D C Raina, senior advocate Sunil Sethi on behalf of J&K Bank and senior advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai representing the aggrieved petitioners.
Both Raina and Sethi submitted that in keeping with the Act, the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited as a “Court of first instance.”
“Since the instant matter relates to recruitment in the Bank, declared as a public authority, all jurisdiction and powers and authority in relation thereto lies with the CAT,” the AG said.
Senior Advocate Sethi told the court that the Bank being a public authority and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution the posts borne on it are civil posts under the Union and, therefore, are covered under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the CAT Act.
Senior Advocate Ganai submitted that the instant matter did not fall within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 14, but was covered by sub-section (3) which, he said, exclusively refers to ‘any local or other authority or corporation or society’.
“The provision of sub-section (3) does not have an automatic application to local or other authorities or corporations or societies, but this provision is to be applied by the Central Government by notification,” he said.
He submitted that so far the Central Government has not issued any such notification applying the provision of sub-section (3) to the J&K Bank.
After hearing the arguments, the court held that certain documents and notifications issued by the Central Government, from time to time, in exercise of such power under sub-section (2) of Section 14 have been placed before it.
These notifications, the court said, depict that so far nearly 214 organizations, by their name, have been brought under the purview of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the CAT Act.
Pointing out that the J&K Bank, in any case, is not one amongst these organizations, the court held that it cannot be said that sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the CAT Act applies to the Bank or the instant recruitment process of the Bank.
Underlining that CAT does not have the jurisdiction under Section 14 in relation to the subject matter of controversy in the case, the court said it (HC) continues to have the jurisdiction in relation thereto to entertain this petition.
Meanwhile, the court observed that while hearing arguments on jurisdiction of the case earlier it had declined to hear the arguments of AG and that of senior counsel representing Bank that mere participation in the selection process accrued no right to the petitioners to seek completion of the earlier selection process.
“Since the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the petition was under question, this Court declined to hear the learned counsel on the merits of the case then,” the court said.
Observing that the preliminary issues was now determined, the court said it would proceed to hear the counsel for the parties on the merits of the case on the next date of hearing.
The petitioners before the court are seeking upholding of earlier selection process in which they had participated.
Earlier the Court had allowed the J&K bank to proceed with the selection process for 350 posts of Probationary Officers and 1500 Banking Associates. It had however made it clear that final select list of candidates shall not be drawn, issued or published unless orders are sought from the court.