SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL ETC. versus KRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 21-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL ETC. 
v. 
KRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTYAND ORS. ETC. 
APRIL 21, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHARAND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/Central Administrative Tribunal 
(Procedure) Rules, 1987. 
C 
S.22(3) (j)!Rule 17-Review-Scope of-Order passed by Central 
Administrative Tribunal-Special leave petition challenging the order 
dismissed by Supreme Court-Review thereafter before Tribunal-Held, the 
judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality and Tribunal has no power to 
review that judgment-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 47, Rule 1. 
D 
Service Law : 
Indian Police Service-Promotion to-Assistant Commandants in Orissa 
Military Police-Seeking promotion to Indian Police Service Cadre-Matter 
remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration. 
E 
Practice and Procedure : 
'Person aggrieved'- Explained. 
The Appellant, an ex-Military Officer, appointed as an Assistant 
Commandant in the Orissa Military Police and confirmed in the service 
F w.e.f. 1975, filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that he was 
eligible to be considered for promotion to India Police Service Cadre. The 
petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack 
Bench and numbered as T.A. 1189. The stand of the respondents was that 
only the Superintendents of Police in the Orissa Police Force were eligible 
G for promotion to IPS cadre. The Tribunal by its order dated 24.12.1991 
· allowed the application holding that posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
and Assistant Commandant of the Orissa Military Police constituted a single 
cadre prior to 5th of November, 1980. It was directed that the appellant 
should be considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.1.1977 in respect of each year 
beginning therefrom till January, 1980. The Union oflndia, State ofOrissa 
H and two of the private respondents in T.A. 1/89 challenged the said order 
1108 
j 
G. Bl SW AL v. K.C. MOHANTY 
1109 
before this Court by filling a special leave petition which was dismissed on A 
3.8.1992. 
In July 1993, respondents l and 2 filed before the Tribunal an application 
which was converted into a review petition and numbered as RA. 16/93. They 
contended that the cadres of Deputy Superintendents of Police and Assistant 
Commandants in Orissa Military Police were separate and the officers 
belonging to latter were not eligible for promotion as IPS. Similar review 
petition was filed by two direct recruits to the IPS cadre. Some of the 
Assistant Commandants in Orissa Military Police also filed applications, 
which were numbered as OAs No. 276, 277 and 278of1993 for granting 
them the benefit of the decision of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1/89. 
The Tribunal reviewed its earlier judgment in TA 1/89 on the ground 
that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and held that the 
two cadres of Deputy Superintendents of Police and Assistant Commandants 
B 
c 
of Orissa Military Police were separate from inception and the officers 
belonging to the latter were not eligible for promotion to Indian Police D 
Service. The Tribunal then dismissed TA 1/89 and O.As No. 276 to 278 of 
1993. Aggrieved the applicants in TA 1/89 and 0. As No. 276 to 278 of 1993 
filed the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The power ofreview granted to an Administrative Tribunal 
under s. 22 (3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 1985 is similar to the 
power given to a civil court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908. Once a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of 
E 
the Constitution is filed against an order of an Administrative Tribunal, the F 
party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review, and the Tribunal 
cannot exercise the power of review. The rejection of a special leave petition, 
in effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the 
judgment and order appealed against final and binding. [1115-C-B) 
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, (1993) 3 G 
S.C.C. 463; Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda 
& Ors., (1997) 6 S.C.C. 78; K. Ajit Babu & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
(1997) 6 S.C.C. 473 and Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India 
& Ors. etc. etc., [1995) 2 SCALE 23, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the petition for special leave to file appeal to H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A this Court against the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1 of 1989 was 
reject

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