Education Tribunal at Lucknow: Allahabad HC order challenged in Supreme Court

An advocate has challenged the Allahabad High Court order by which it was asked to explain the reasons for proposing to set up a Specialised Education Tribunal at Lucknow instead of Allahabad which is the seat of principal Bench of the High Court..The petition filed by advocate Pankaj Kumar Verma was mentioned by advocate Hari Shankar Jain on August 21. Similar challenge by Oudh Bar Association was also mentioned by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. The matter is likely to be heard on Monday the coming week..The Allahabad High Court had asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to explain why a Specialised Education Tribunal proposed to be set up has been planned to be located at Lucknow alone when the principal Bench of the High Court is located at Allahabad..The direction was passed by the High Court in a PIL taken up by the Court titled, In Re: Dispute Relating to Place of Establishment of Adjudicatory Forum Like Specialized Tribunal etc. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Misra and Sudhir Agarwal observed,.“State has to explain, whether it has policy of providing justice to the place nearer the litigants or it has policy of providing justice by creating a Centrally located Adjudicatory Forum in the State only at one place; if so, what are the considerations on which selection of such place is made. State must also explain as to whether it has taken into consideration the dictum laid down by Supreme Court time and again regarding the place of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Courts are situated and if it denies establishment of Tribunal at the place where jurisdictional High Court is situated, what are the considerations which prevail with it to take such decision.”.The issue had come to light when the High Court came to know of an ongoing strike being conducted by the High Court lawyers..The strike was called following the State government’s decision to constitute a Special Education Tribunal at Lucknow, which would take away the High Court’s jurisdiction over cases relating to education disputes. The Court was informed that judicial work at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court had also been stalled following the lawyer’s strike..Whereas the legislation establishing the education tribunal is yet to receive Presidential assent, the High Court had expressed concern that its proposed location is less accessible to prospective litigants. Bearing such concerns in mind, the Bench had issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government..The same has now been challenged the same in Supreme Court..The Allahabad High Court while passing the order had referred extensively to the observations made by the Supreme Court in SP Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India [(1987) 1 SCC 124], Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India [(2014) 10 SCC 1] and L Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261]..It has been submitted that the above-mentioned cases have been decided in respect of the Tribunals established by an Act of Parliament enacted under Article 323-A of the Constitution. All the cases referred to by High Court relate to the establishment of Tribunals under the Central Act while the Tribunal in question has been proposed to be established pursuant to a State enactment – the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal Act..The same has been enacted by the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature Act in the exercise of the powers derived under Item 25 of List 3 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has submitted..Moreover, the petitioner has also contended that the validity of Act was not under consideration before the High Court and therefore there was no occasion to make an observation on merits at this stage. The question of establishment of Tribunal at Lucknow through Educational Act may be challenged as soon as same is enforced. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that any observation made by the High Court on merits of the case at this stage may prejudice the case of those who are supporting the establishment of Tribunal at Lucknow..Note: An earlier version of the story incorrectly mentioned UP Government as having challenged the Allahabad High Court order. The error is regretted.