ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 – Ss. 15, 22 & 24 – Service matters – Recruitment disputes – Maintainability of writ petition before High Court – Doctrine of alternative remedy – Jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunal as Court of first instance – Exceptional circumstances – Scope. Government of Karnataka issued recruitment notification for appointment of 15,000 Graduate Primary Teachers for Classes 6-8 – Certain married women candidates applying under OBC category produced caste-cum-income certificates of parents instead of husbands – Their candidature treated under General Merit category resulting in exclusion from provisional select list – Single Judge of High Court entertained writ petitions under Article 226 and directed State to treat such candidates as OBC candidates relying on T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. – Division Bench set aside order and relegated parties to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) holding writ petitions not maintainable in view of remedy under Administrative Tribunals Act – Correctness.

advocatemmmohan

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Arts. 226, 227, 323-A & 141 – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 – Ss. 15, 22 & 24 – Service matters – Recruitment disputes – Maintainability of writ petition before High Court – Doctrine of alternative remedy – Jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunal as Court of first instance – Exceptional circumstances – Scope.

Government of Karnataka issued recruitment notification for appointment of 15,000 Graduate Primary Teachers for Classes 6-8 – Certain married women candidates applying under OBC category produced caste-cum-income certificates of parents instead of husbands – Their candidature treated under General Merit category resulting in exclusion from provisional select list – Single Judge of High Court entertained writ petitions under Article 226 and directed State to treat such candidates as OBC candidates relying on T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. – Division Bench set aside order and relegated parties to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) holding writ petitions not maintainable in view of remedy under Administrative Tribunals Act – Correctness.

Held : In service matters and recruitment disputes falling within jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act, Tribunal acts as Court of first instance and litigants cannot directly invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 bypassing statutory forum. Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India categorically mandates that challenges concerning recruitment and service matters must first be adjudicated by Tribunal, subject thereafter to judicial review by High Court under Articles 226 and 227.

Availability of efficacious statutory remedy before Tribunal ordinarily bars maintainability of writ petition unless case falls within recognised exceptions such as enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, proceedings wholly without jurisdiction or challenge to vires of parent legislation. Present dispute relating to rejection of caste-cum-income certificates of certain candidates during recruitment process did not constitute extraordinary or exceptional circumstance warranting direct exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Reliance placed by Single Judge on T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. was misconceived. Said decision arose in unprecedented situation involving dismissal of about two lakh employees and cannot be treated as authority permitting bypass of statutory Tribunal in ordinary recruitment disputes. At best, observations therein were confined to peculiar facts and exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142.

Administrative Tribunals Act provides complete and efficacious machinery for adjudication of service disputes including powers regarding interim relief, review, contempt, reception of evidence and expeditious disposal. KSAT is fully competent to adjudicate issues relating to validity and interpretation of caste certificates and inter se recruitment disputes.

Candidates whose names appeared only in provisional select list acquired no vested or indefeasible right to appointment. Consequently, Division Bench rightly declined to revive earlier provisional select list after setting aside judgment of Single Judge. Revival of provisional list at that stage would create administrative confusion and prejudice ongoing recruitment process.

Interim directions previously passed by Supreme Court protecting appointments already made and reserving 500 posts directed to continue subject to final adjudication by KSAT. Supreme Court clarified that merits of controversy regarding caste and income certificates remained open for adjudication before Tribunal.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India; Rajeev Kumar v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan; Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India; Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh; PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, relied on.
T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N., distinguished.

(Paras 26 to 50)

HELD

In service and recruitment matters covered by Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act, State Administrative Tribunal functions as Court of first instance and litigants cannot directly approach High Court under Article 226 bypassing statutory forum. (Paras 26, 27 and 32)

Existence of efficacious alternative remedy ordinarily bars exercise of writ jurisdiction except in exceptional situations involving violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or challenge to vires of legislation. (Paras 33 to 37)

Dispute relating to rejection or interpretation of caste-cum-income certificates during recruitment process does not constitute extraordinary circumstance justifying bypass of jurisdiction of Tribunal. (Paras 28 to 30)

Decision in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. was rendered in exceptional factual background involving dismissal of two lakh employees and cannot be treated as precedent dispensing with statutory remedy before Tribunal in ordinary recruitment disputes. (Para 28)

Candidate whose name appears only in provisional select list acquires no vested right to appointment and Court cannot ordinarily direct revival of provisional select list after recruitment process has progressed further. (Para 48)

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides comprehensive adjudicatory mechanism including powers relating to interim orders, review, contempt and expeditious disposal and therefore constitutes effective alternative remedy. (Paras 38 to 46)

RESULT

Appeals dismissed. Judgment of Division Bench relegating parties to Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal affirmed. Interim orders passed by Supreme Court regarding appointments and reservation of 500 posts made absolute subject to final adjudication by KSAT. Tribunal requested to decide applications expeditiously, preferably within six months.