JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J.
1. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 28.9.2004 whereby the date fixed for verification of the certificate of diploma holders, who had completed their apprenticeship period with the Opposite Party No. 8, has been postponed to a future date. An objection has been raised by Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the question of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. According to him, against the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioners have a remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Pandey submitted that an apprentice, Jaideep Shukla alongwith few others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against the impugned order but the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2004 dismissed the original application, against which they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36 (S/B) 2005 whereby following order was passed :
"Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri Asit Chaturvedi, who prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri C.B. Pandey has submitted that protection be given to the petitioners as the respondents are continuing with the process of recruitment and in case all the vacancies are filled in, petitioners' interest would be adversely effected.
Sri Asit Chaturvedi has stated that all 30 vacancies are there which have already been filled in and no further vacancies have to be filled in from amongst the apprentices.
We, therefore, provide that in case any further vacancies are to be filled in through apprentice trainees, either case of the petitioners shall be considered as per rules or the vacancies to the extent of number of the petitioners shall not be filled in till further orders of the Court.
List in the month of February, 2005.
Sd/- Hon. Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon. N.K. Mehrotra, J.
10.1.2005"
3. According to the learned Counsel since the Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the order dated 28.9.2004 and against which this Court intervened therefore it would be a futile bid if the petitioners are relegated to an alternative remedy. In this connection he placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in T.K. Rangrajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 581. On the strength of the said judgment, Sri Pandey submitted that if unprecedented extraordinary situation arises then filing of a writ petition cannot be an absolute bar on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the person who approaches the High Court under Article 226. He further submits that in view of the fact that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the earlier petitioners who had approached this Court and where upon the aforesaid order was passed, therefore, filing of application before the Tribunal would be without any purpose.
4. This Court is not impressed by the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In case of T.K. Rangrajan (supra) unprecedented action of the Tamil Nadu Government, terminating the services of all the employees who had resorted to strike for their demands was challenged before the High Court by filing of writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In the said case 2211 employees had been kept under detention out of which 74 were ladies. Subsequently few were released on bail, out of which 169 male and 7 were female, therefore, the learned Single Judge by an interim order directed the State Government that suspension and dismissal of employees without conducting any enquiry be kept in abeyance until further orders and such employees were directed to resume duties. Upon appeal before the Division Bench the interim order was set aside and conclusion was arrived at that without exhausting the alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Consequently the petitioners of the said petitions were relegated to the Tribunal. Against the judgment and order rendered by the High Court some of the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 while others filed petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In this back drop the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that' if thousands of employees are directed to approach the Administrative Tribunal it would not be in a position to render justice to the cause. In paragraphs 5 and 10 of the said report the Apex Court observed as follows :
"5. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to meet unprecedented extraordinary situation having no parallel. It is equally true that extraordinary powers are required to be sparingly used. The facts of the present case reveal that this was most extraordinary case, which called for interference by the High Court, as the State Government had dismissed about two lakh employees for going on strike.
10. There cannot be any doubt that the aforesaid judgment of larger Bench is binding on this Court and we respectfully agree with the same. However, in a case like this, if thousands of employees are directed to approach the Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal would not be in a position to render justice to the cause. Hence, as stated earlier, because of very exceptional circumstance that arose in the present case, there was no justifiable reason for the High Court not to entertain the petitions on the ground of alternative remedy provided under the statute."
5. The learned Counsel further argued that alternative remedy can also be bye-passed if the Tribunal is not functional or any other circumstance exists which prevents a person beyond his control in approaching the Tribunal.
6. In the case at hand there is no unprecedented extraordinary situation like one which existed before the Apex Court in T.K. Rangrajan's case. By virtue of the impugned order only the date for verification of the certificates of diploma holders has been postponed for a future date. The Tribunal had decided the case of Jaideep Shukla and others on merits against which the petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 whereupon the order dated 10.1.2005 was passed. Mere fact that the High Court entertained the writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, deciding the Original Application on merits, the alternative remedy available to the petitioners cannot be bye-passed. The petitioners still have an equally efficacious remedy before the Tribunal.
7. In view of what has been said above and in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. In case the petitioners files Original Application before the Tribunal within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal within six weeks thereafter.