By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned selection list dated 10.06.2020 issued by respondent no.3 and also to command the respondents to issue new selection list of Gramin Dak Sevak by entering the name of the petitioner in the select list.
At the outset, Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents - Union of India has raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal under section 14(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Sri Pandey has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others reported at SCC 1997 (3) 261.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the existence of alternative statutory remedy. However, he submits that this court may hear the present writ petition as there is no bar for hearing the writ petition inspite of alternative remedy available to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harbans Lal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others reported at AIR 2003 SC 2120 wherein it has been observed that "in an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court, this Court may hear the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the case laws cited by the respective parties.
In L. Chandra Kumar (supra), Hon'ble the Apex court has held that it will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal.
In Harbans Lal Sahnia (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies which are (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged.
The case is in hand does not cover with the three contingencies as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal Sahnia (supra). The petitioner has the remedy of filing a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal under section 14(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Section 14 of the Act provides the Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Since statutory alternative remedy is available with the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable before this court.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 VNP/-