In Savitha Koduvalli Vs The Government of Puducherry & Ors., [W.P. No. 13841 of 2023], the Madras High Court has reiterated that Writ Petition is not maintainable when the Petitioner has not agitated the issue raised therein before the Central Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
CASE SUMMARY:
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer Grade-II in furtherance to the notification dated 12.01.2016 issued by the Government of Puducherry. In another notification dated 02.03.2022 issued by the Government of Puducherry, fresh applications were invited for the same post with a note that those who have applied earlier in response to the notification dated 12.01.2016 need not apply again and their eligibility regarding age would be reckoned as per the cut-off date notified earlier. The Petitioner found from the website of the Respondent that his application was rejected on the ground that his application was submitted belatedly. From the records, it is shown that the application was sent by registered post before the last date for submission while the same was received by the office of the Respondent one day after the last date for submission. As the Petitioner was not issued hall ticket for test scheduled to be held on 30.04.2023, the Petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction to permit her to attend the recruitment test.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- Application was dispatched on time. The delay of one day is due to postal delay;
- Subsequent notification calling for fresh applications had opened the last date for submission vide the earlier notification;
- Representations sent to the Respondent enumerating the facts and seeking redressal of the Petitioner’s grievance but no action taken despite sufficient lapse of time.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT:
- The subject matter pertains to recruitment to a civil post under the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry and hence the Central Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter by virtue of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
- As a corollary, writ petition is not maintainable since alternative efficacious remedy is available.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Petition dismissed.
REASONS:
- In Government of Tamil Nadu vs P. Hepzi Vimalabai [(1995) 1 MLJ 1], the full bench of the Madras High Court has held that the use of the words ‘recruitment and matters concerning recruitment’ in Sections 14, 15 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and in Article 323-A of the Constitution of India would necessarily mean that the Tribunal established under the Act would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all matters specified therein and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution;
- In L. Chandrakumar Vs Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the Madras High Court has held that ‘it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court with respect to matters failing within the ambit of the Administrative Tribunals even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal…’
- No explanation given by the Petitioner for directly approaching the High Court without exhausting remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
COUNSELS:
For Petitioner: Mr. Hari Prasad;
For the Respondents: M. Nirmalkumar;
Date of Judgment: 28.04.2023
(This is a judgment summary and not an opinion piece.)
Komentarji