KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. versus SUBHAS SHARMA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 07-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
SUBHAS SHARMA 
MARCH 7, 2002 
[S.N. PHUKAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: 
Section 1 (2)(a)-Applicability of Act-To State of Jammu and Kashmir-
Held: The Act is applicable to all categories of Central Government servants 
and others posted to work in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 
A 
B 
c 
Section 14(/)(b)(iii)-Kendriya Vidyalaya-Service matters-Central D 
Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction, powers and authority of-Held: The 
Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction concerning service matters of 
employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya-lt does not make any difference even if the 
institution is located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
E 
Articles 226 and 227-Service matters-Writ petition-Jurisdiction of 
High Court-Held: The High Court does not have jurisdiction to directly 
entertain writ petitions concerning service matters-Central Administrative 
Tribunals should continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect F 
of service matters-Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, Ss. /03 and 104. 
The respondents, employees of the appellant-Kendriya Vidyalaya, filed 
writ petitions before the High Court alleging some disputes regarding their 
service condition. The appellants filed applications for transfer of the writ 
petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that under G 
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to 
decide the disputes. But the High Court dismissed the applications. Hence this 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
335 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: Per PHUKAN, J. 
1. In view of Section 1(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 
the Act applies to all categories of Central Government servants and others 
posted to work in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well. (340-B] 
B 
Ku/dip Khud v. Masud Ahmad Chodhry, (1994) JKLR 25 (J&K) (FB), 
approved. 
2.1. The Kendriya Vidyalaya is an autonomous body registered under 
the Societies Registration Act and controlled by the Government of India and 
that being the position the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction concerning 
C the service matters of the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya in view of Section 
14(l)(b)(iii) of the Act. [341-A] 
Y ." 
2.2. The service disputes concerning the employees of the Kendriya 
Vidyalaya would come under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal. It does not make any difference that the institution is located in 
D Jammu and Kashmir and the respondent is working there. [341-C] 
3. The High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petitions 
concerning the service matters of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya 
as these matters come under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 
The High Court, therefore, committed an error by declining to transfer the 
E writ petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal. f342-BI 
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India., (1997) 3 SCC 261, followed. 
Ku/dip Khud v. Masud Ahmad Chodhry, (1994) JKLR 25 (J&K) (FB), 
partly overruled. 
F 
PER REDDI, J, SUPPLEMENTING 
1. The embargo on the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court 
stands lifted by virtue of the decision in Chandra Kumar's case. The High 
Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India or the 
corresponding provisions in the J and K Constitution, namely, Section 103/ 
G 104 will retain their jurisdiction even in relation to the service matters falling 
within the sweep of Article 323-A(l). To this extent, the ultimate conclusion 
. .,-
reached by the Full Bench of the J & K High Court on an entirely different 
ground accords with the Constitution Bench Judgment in Chandra Kumar's 
case. (343-H] 
H 
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, [1997) 3 sec 261, followed. 
--r 
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. SUBHAS SHARMA 
337 
2. The decision in Chandra Kumar's case is a product of judicial A 
craftsmanship and a landmark in the development of Constitutional law in 
our republic. Even if the Judgment does not ipso facto apply to the J and K 
State Constitution, there is no apparent reason why the ratio of this Judgment 
should not be applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by the J & K High Court 
under Sections 103 and 104 of the J & K Constitution. The wholesome B 
principle evolved by this Court in Chandra Kumar, could be extended to 
sections 103 and 104 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.