IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO WRIT PETITION NO.9368/2017(S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1.RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD NO.18, MILLERS’ ROAD, BANGALORE-560046 BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2.UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI-110001 (BY SRI N S PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR SONI AGED 33 YEARS, S/O KAILASH CHANDRA SONI, NEAR POST OFFICE, BHILAL -DURG, CHATTISGARH-490021 ...PETITIONERS 2.YASHWANTHRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY, GNANAGANGOTHRI, NEAR GANGAPUR, DHANE NASIK-422222 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 3.MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION NO.49, KHERWADI ALIYAWAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASWIN PRABHU S D, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.09.2016 PASSED IN O.A.1264/2015 BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL / BANGALORE AT ANNEX-Q AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS O.A.1264/2015 ON THE FILE OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL/ BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Notice.
2. Mr.Aswin Prabhu, learned Counsel appears for respondent No.1-contesting party who was applicant before the Tribunal. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are as such, proforma respondents, since there were respondents in the main application before the Tribunal and no order is passed by the Tribunal in their favour. Therefore we find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the view which may be taken by us, the presence of respondent Nos.2 and 3 may not be required.
3. The only aspect to be considered in the present petition is whether the Tribunal when pronounced the order on 07.09.2016 could consider the material which was tendered on 08.09.2016 i.e., later to the pronouncement of the order. The answer has to be negative for the reasons stated hereinafter.
4. It is an undisputed position that the impugned order is dated 07.09.0216. In the impugned order at paragraph-10 it has been mentioned as under:
“In a memo dated 8.9.2016 the applicant has submitted a copy of the list of Universities approved by the Distance Education Council (DEC) from its website and a copy of the letter of recognition dated 8.4.2008 issued by the DEC to YCMQU.”
5. We need not address ourselves to the other aspects, since in our view the aforesaid clearly shows that though the order was pronounced on 07.09.2016, the Tribunal has considered the material for which the reference is incorporated in the order at paragraph-10 referred to hereinabove. The aforesaid leads to two situations. Either the date of the order 07.09.2016 is not correct or that the memo dated 08.09.2016 is not correctly dated. In any case, if the judgment and the order of the Tribunal is considered as it is, it would call for many aspects to be addressed about the mode and the manner in which judgment is pronounced which incorporates the incident later to the judgment. We leave it at that without making any further observations but suffice it to state that the aforesaid shows not only ex-facie non application of mind on the part of the Tribunal but such cannot be conceived that the date of the judgment is earlier whereas it refers to the material produced of a later date.
6. In any case, even if material of a later date was to be considered, it could not have been done by the Tribunal, without giving opportunity to the petitioner. The grievance on the part of the petitioner is also that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to the so- called memo dated 08.09.2016.
7. Be that as it may. Since the Tribunal is a statutory Tribunal, we find it appropriate not to make any further observations about the mode and manner in which the so-called material dated 08.09.2016 is considered. If the order is pronounced after 08.09.2016 or on 08.09.2016, it could not have been dated 07.09.2016. Further, the Tribunal has not only referred to the memo dated 08.09.2016 but has also taken support of the memo dated 08.09.2016 in paragraph-12 of the aforesaid impugned judgment.
8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure ‘Q’ is set aside with a direction that the main original application shall stand restored to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall give opportunity of hearing to both the sides and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
10. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/-