@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Aftab Alam, J.@mdashHeard Mr. K.N. Chaubey, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and the Addl. Advocate General No. II appearing for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner is a member of the Bihar Administrative Service and is currently posted as Joint Secretary in the Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar. In this writ petition he seeks from this Court a direction to the Respondents generally and to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Respondent No. 2 particular to issue an "integrity certificate" in his favour of which the Petitioner is in need, in his own words, "as a prerequisite for issuance of notification for promotion to Indian Administrative Service."
3. According to the Petitioner, he was earlier selected for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service and his name was included in the select list for 1996-97 (at serial No. 14 of that list), subject to the availability of the integrity certificate. However, the required certificate was not issued and hence, the prospects of the Petitioner�s promotion to the Central Services Class I were frustrated. It is further stated that the Petitioner has been once again selected for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service by the selection committee in its meeting held on May 16, 2001 but the Petitioner was not being issued the integrity certificate despite requests and representations made by him in that regard. Getting no favourable response to his representations the Petitioner finally came to this Court for necessary directions to the concerned authorities.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State., it is stated that there were some reports of irregularities committed by the Petitioner while he was posted at different places. The reported irregularities were under investigation and the integrity certificate as desired by the Petitioner could only be issued if investigation showed that'' the allegations against the Petitioner were untrue or unsubstantiated.
5. Mr. Chaubey submitted that there was no disciplinary proceeding pending against the Petitioner, much less any adverse remarks, in his confidential character-rolls and he strongly contended that a vague investigation/enquiry on completely unsubstantiated allegations could not be made the basis for withholding the integrity certificate to the Petitioner and thereby frustrating his prospects of promotion to the Central Services Class I.
6. Before proceeding to examine the Petitioner�s claim for integrity certificate on merits, it is necessary to consider the objection raised on behalf of the State regarding the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court .
7. Mr. A.A.G. II pointed out that the remedy of the Petitioner lay in filing a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The A.A.G. II submitted that Section 14 of the Act. dealing with ; the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal was sufficiently wide to include a dispute regarding issuance of integrity certificate for selection promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. Section 14 of the Act, in so far as relevant for the present, is as follows:
14. Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to--
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian.
8. Mr. A.A.G. II submitted, and in my opinion rightly, that the expression "matters concerning recruitment" was sufficiently wide to take into the ambit of the Tribunal''s jurisdiction a dispute regarding issuance of an integrity certificate to any employee of the State Government.
9. Mr. K.N. Chaubey strenuously resisted the proposition. Mr. Chaubey submitted that the issuance of the integrity certificate was at a stage anterior to the actual process of selection. Learned Counsel contended that the Petitioner having served the State with loyalty, sincerity and faithfulness was entitled to the issuance of the integrity certificate and the reason assigned for withholding the certificate was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and untenable in the eyes of law.
10. I am unable to accept the submission. It is to be noted that the requirement of a certificate commonly called as the integrity certificate arises from a decision of the Central Government taken in the context of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Regulation 3 provides for constitution of a committee to make selection and under that regulation the Govt. of India, on the basis of the recommendations of the committee on the prevention of corruption, took the decision that a certificate testifying to the integrity of all eligible officers whose cases are placed before the selection committee for consideration should be recorded by the Chief Secretary to the State Government who is the sponsoring authority.
11. It is, therefore, evident and clear that the integrity certificate has no other use or purpose except to be taken into consideration by the selection committee for selection of the candidates for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The Petitioner himself is not unconscious of this fact and in the writ petition it is repeatedly stated that the integrity certificate is a pre-requisite pre-condition for the issuance of notification for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service; that his earlier selection for promotion was frustrated for want of the integrity certificate and his present selection on 16.5.2001 may also get frustrated if the integrity certificate was not issued by the Chief Secretary.
12. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that though essential for selection and promotion to the I.A.S., the integrity certificate has no other use or purpose. Hence, a dispute regarding issuance of integrity certificate will undoubtedly be covered by the expression "matters concerning recruitment" and would, therefore, be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal.
13. Once a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, this Court would normally withhold its hand till a decision is rendered by the Tribunal which Has been set up under Article 323A of the Constitution specially for resolving service disputes.
14. Mr. Chaubey brought to my notice a decision of this Court , dated 28.4.19.99 in CWJC No. 2031 of 1999 Jai Shankar Tiwary v. State of Bihar wherein this Court after quashing the departmental proceedings pending against the Petitioner in that case gave directions for issuance of integrity certificate in his favour. In that decision, however, the question whether the dispute regarding issuance of integrity certificate was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal was never raised and did not come up for decision. The decision in the case of Jai Shankar Tiwary, therefore, cannot be considered a binding precedent on this issue.
15. For the reason discussed above, find and hold that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court at this stage and the Petitioner�s remedy lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Petitioner may seek his remedy by filing a petition u/s 19 before the Tribunal.
16. At this stage, this Court may take notice of supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the Petitioner. In the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that at the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, there is only one Administrative Member who is holding court at present; that there is no Vice Chairman and it is not possible to constitute a division bench there for the final disposal of the petitions. The Petitioner, therefore, apprehends that this case before the Tribunal may not be disposed of in time before he superannuates from service on April 31, 2002. Mr. A.A.G. II stated that that might be the position today but a little while ago the Patna Bench of the Tribunal had a full functional capacity and there is no reason why the full functional capacity of the Tribunal at Patna may not be restored without any delay.
17. However, in order to allay the Petitioner�s apprehensions, this Court would like to put on record that in case the Petitioner files a petition before the Patna Bench of the Administrative Tribunal, this Court has no doubt that the Tribunal would be alive to the need for an early disposal of the case because the Petitioner would be retiring on 31.4.2002. In case there be any difficulty due to non availability of a Vice Chairman or Additional Member(s) at Patna, the Member available at the Patna Bench may always request the Chairman to send additional member(s) on circuit or deputation for an early disposal of this case and some other cases which might require early disposal. In case such a request is made, there is no reason why the Chairman would not respond positively.
18. this Court has no doubt that in case the Petitioner approaches the Tribunal, his petition will be heard and disposed of on merits at an early date.
19. I may here also record the statement of A.A.G. II that having raised the jurisdictional objection before this Court , the State shall not raise any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in case the Petitioner files a petition there.
20. This writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of maintainability, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the parties case.
