New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) The Delhi High Court Monday said the plea against appointment of Haryana Police chief Manoj Yadava was not maintainable as its remedy lies only before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The court passed the verdict on a petition by IPS officer Prabhat Ranjan Deo seeking quashing of the recommendation and empanelment of Yadava by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and his appointment as Haryana Police Director General by the state government order of February 18, 2019.

Also Read | Pinarayi Vijayan Accuses BJP of 'Spreading Lies' After JP Nadda Alleges That Kerala Govt is Suppressing Actual COVID-19 Figures.

The high court relied on various judgements of the Supreme Court and said the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act make it clear that in relation to service matters covered under the Act, there is an ouster of jurisdiction of the high court as a court of ‘first instance', and the tribunal is not an ‘alternative', but is the ‘only' forum available to petitioner Deo.

“It is neither a matter of ‘choice' for the petitioner to approach the tribunal, nor is it a matter of discretion with this court to entertain the petition,” Justice Jyoti Singh said in the 15-page judgement.

Also Read | Rajasthan Political Crisis | Congress MLAs Taken to Hotel Fairmont in Jaipur After Congress Legislative Party Meeting: Live News Breaking and Coronavirus Updates on July 13, 2020.

In view of the apex court rulings and the relevant provisions of the Act, the high court said the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.

The high court, however, said it would be open for the petitioner to approach the CAT for determination of his grievances on merits and made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

“The arguments were heard and judgement was reserved only limited to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition,” it said.

The counsel for UPSC, Haryana government and Yadava had opposed the plea contending that Deo has chosen a wrong forum and instead of the high court, he should have approached the CAT which has jurisdiction on all-India service matters.

On the preliminary objection raised by the respondents' counsel, senior advocate Arvind Verma and lawyer Aditi Mohan, representing petitioner Deo, submitted that the Supreme Court had granted them liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court and as office of UPSC is located in Delhi, the jurisdictional High Court is Delhi High Court.

The counsel said the petition has been filed in terms of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court and thus it is not open to the respondents to raise any objection to its maintainability.

To this, the high court said the March 25, 2019 order of the Supreme Court, which has been relied upon heavily by the senior counsel, has to be read and understood in the light of the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the top court, to mean that a High Court exercising power of judicial review over the order of the tribunal, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

“In my view, the contention of the petitioner that the Supreme Court intended to confer jurisdiction upon this court, which it does not have, cannot be sustained.

"The argument that the petition has been pending in this court since March, 2019 and should be entertained, no doubt appeals at first blush, but cannot be sustained due to lack of jurisdiction. No court can usurp a jurisdiction, it lacks and I am afraid, this plea does not take the case of the petitioner forward,” Justice Singh said.

The petition by IPS officer Deo had claimed that the Supreme Court's directions on selection and appointment of DGPs were "not being followed". It had also sought a stay on appointment of Yadava as the Haryana state's DGP.

"The senior most and reputed officer such as the petitioner (Deo) will be forced to work under and take instructions from his junior officer, whose eligibility for the post is in question. Such discrimination by the respondents towards petitioner and other senior officers with much more experience than respondent no. 4 (Yadava), who is enjoying a higher position and reputation is totally insulting, humiliating and patently illegal," the petition had said.

It had also said the apex court's direction was not being complied with and misinterpreted by the UPSC wherein Deo, despite being in the shortlisted panel sent by the state government amongst the eligible officers, was not even considered, probably on the ground that his tenure was less than two years due to shortfall of four months before superannuation.

The apex court had on March 13 last year clarified its 2018's order on police reforms and said the officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service can be considered for the post of DGP.

In July 2018, the top court had passed a slew of directions on police reforms and had directed the UPSC to consider those IPS officers "who have got a clear two years of service" for appointment as DGPs, besides giving due weightage to the "merit and seniority".

"Thus, non-consideration of the petitioner on the criterion of an officer to have mandatory two years of length of service remaining is neither in conformity with the spirit of the Supreme Court directions nor in consonance with the settled practice as followed by the UPSC itself," it had said.

Deo had said in his petition that on the date of vacancy, that is October 1, 2018, he clearly had two years of service left and even as on date in March last year, he had 18 months of service before superannuation.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)