Case Note & Summary
The judgment was delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in two consolidated writ petitions (W.P. No. 5266 of 2008 and W.P. No. 4102 of 2009) filed by a group of unemployed individuals challenging the selection of numerous private respondents to the posts of Civil Engineering Assistants in the Public Works Department. The petitioners claimed that the selected candidates did not possess the requisite qualifications as per recruitment rules, whereas the petitioners themselves had undergone a special course expected of aspirants for the post. They sought, among other reliefs, a writ of quo warranto against the appointees. At the outset, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioners ought to have approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the Tribunal is the designated forum for service matters. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, which held that Tribunals are the courts of first instance in their respective domains and that it is not open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts by overlooking the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The petitioners countered that they were on the verge of crossing the age limit for appointment, making the alternative remedy inefficacious, and that the Administrative Tribunal lacks the power to issue a writ of quo warranto, which was the primary relief they sought. They also noted that successive Division Benches had earlier admitted the petitions after hearing the same preliminary objection. The court extensively excerpted from the L. Chandra Kumar judgment, particularly paragraphs 93 and 99, which summarize the Tribunals' competence and their role as the only courts of first instance. The provided judgment text ends abruptly during the quotation, and therefore the final decision of the High Court on the preliminary objection and on the merits of the selection challenge is not contained in the extracted material. The matter was reserved for judgment on 10 June 2011 and pronounced on 4 July 2011, but the outcome is not disclosed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Sections 15, 28 - The petitioners filed writ petitions directly in High Court challenging selection of Civil Engineering Assistants, while respondents objected that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is the exclusive court of first instance for service matters under the Act, relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. The petitioners contended that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued by the Tribunal and they would soon age out; the court reserved judgment on the preliminary objection (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable directly before the High Court when an alternative remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and whether the Administrative Tribunal can issue a writ of quo warranto
Law Points
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India held that Administrative Tribunals are courts of first instance for service matters
- cannot issue writ of quo warranto
- writ of quo warranto only available under Article 226
