Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9931 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sanjana Yadav Respondent :- The Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobhanath Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Srinath Dwivedi, for the respondents.
Present writ petition is preferred seeking following principal reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter of rejection passed by Inspector Post Offices, Machhalishahar vide letter No.A/Engagement/Saaibhogi ABPM/21 dt. JNP the 8.6.2021 by which the respondent no.4 has rejected the engagement/selection of the petitioner on the post of Asstt. Branch Post Master in postal department (contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to provide the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Asstt. Branch Post Master according a selection dated 20.5.2021 by the respondent no.4 within stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has raised a preliminary that the petitioner has got efficacious remedy to prefer a petition under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
In the case of Rajeev Kumar and another vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 554, Hon'ble the Apex Court after taking into consideration the law as laid down earlier in the case of L. Chand Kumar (supra), has held in para Nos. 13 & 14 as under:-
"In view of such repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which C.A.T. has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance in respect of their service disputes, for adjudication of which C.A.T. has been constituted.
The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that they were not made parties in proceedings before the Tribunal. But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was not averred by them that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Rather from the averments made in the impleadment petition it appears that they were aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was therefore, open for them to approach the Tribunal with their grievances. Not having done so, they cannot, in view of the clear law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar (supra), approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The C.A.T. also has the jurisdiction of Review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy."
Once the petitioner has got statutory remedy available to him to file a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, then there is no reason or occasion for this Court to bypass the statutory forum.
For the aforesaid reasons, on the ground of alternative remedy the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 RKP