http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: INDERMANI KIRTIPAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1567            1996 SCC  (2) 437  JT 1996 (2)   646        1996 SCALE  (2)274

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The petitioner  has raised  a jurisdictional issue. The learned single  Member of  the Tribunal  has  dismissed  the petitioner’s application  in O.A.  No.648/92 by  order dated May 11,  1993. Learned  counsel Shri  D.K. Garg  relies upon Section 5  of the  Administrative Tribunals  Act, 1985  (for short, the  ’Act’) to  contend that the single Member had no jurisdiction to  decide the  matter relating to promotion of the petitioner. His case is that he joined the Department as a seri-skilled  Horkman and was later on appointed as Asstt. Store Keeper  against OEP  vacancy in Dehradun. When juniors and also seniors to him were promoted in OEP Section, he was singled  out  violating  his  right  for  consideration  for appointment to  the higher  post in OEP Section. The case of the respondents  is that  he  was  in  Maintenance  Section, though at  the initial  stage when OEP Section was a cell he had worked  therein. Therefore,  he was  not eligible  to be considered. All others were transferred along with the posts to the  Ordnance factory  while he  remained in  Maintenance Section.  As   a  consequence,  they  formed  a  class,  the petitioner being a class apart.      The question,  therefore, is whether the learned single Member of  the Tribunal  was competent to decide the matter. We are  of the  view that the member had the jurisdiction to decide the  matter for  the reason  that it is not a case of initial lack of jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal by operation of sub-Section (1) of Section 5 has been  empowered to  classify classes  of cases  and make sitting arrangements  of benches  for convenient disposal of cases; and  he  had  ordered  accordingly.  Sub-Section  (2) enumerates various  categories of  cases which  the  members would be  competent to  dispose of.  When its  member  would dispose  of   which  matter   is   one   of   administrative convenience; it  does not  relate to  his jurisdiction. Even

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

under Section  21 of  the Civil  Procedure  Code  objections relating to  pecuniary or  territorial jurisdictional should be raised  at the  earliest and if the parties omit to plead and raise  the objection,  at a  later  stage,  unsuccessful party would  be precluded  to raise  lack  of  jurisdiction. Since the  Tribunal consists  of several  members,  a  bench consisting of  a single  member may  also  be  competent  to dispose of  certain matters.  The matter having been decided by him after considering the case on merits, it is no longer open to  the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction  to decide  the  issue  or  that  the  order suffers from  initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case of improper  disposal of  the matter  without  touching  the jurisdiction of the member who decided the matter.      Under these circumstances, we do not think there is any lack of  jurisdiction warranting  interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.