Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Ganpatrao Ganwir, a Scheduled Caste employee of the State of Maharashtra, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 30 September 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed Original Application No. 927 of 2012 filed by Respondent No. 4, Vivek Ramchandra Naik, who belonged to the V.J. (A) category of backward classes, directing his promotion to the post of Secretary in the Public Works Department. The petitioner was not a party to the Original Application. He sought quashing of the Tribunal's order and a stay of its operation. The petition was filed on 11 November 2013. The matter was adjourned from time to time, and on 15 January 2014, a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability. The court heard the matter finally on 12 February 2014. The court noted that the power of the Writ Court under Article 226 to entertain issues relating to civil services was not in dispute. However, the court emphasized the aspect of exercising jurisdiction when a statutory alternative remedy is available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court observed that the issues pertained to seniority lists, rosters, and government circulars on reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes. The court held that the petitioner, not being a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, lacked locus standi to challenge the order. Additionally, the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste employee not party to Original Application before Tribunal, challenged order promoting another employee - Court held that petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not a party and had alternative remedy under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Petition dismissed (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Alternative remedy
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Administrative Tribunals Act 1985
- Service matters
- Reservation
- Seniority
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 72
Writ Petition No. 10463 of 2013
Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
Mr. Shrihari G. Aney, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. M.S. Karnik with Mr. Ravi Sanyal i/by Mr. Sanskar Marathe for the Petitioner; Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General a/w Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Addl. G.P i/by Afroz Shah for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State; Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. S.P. Manchekar for Respondent No.4
The State of Maharashtra, The Chief Secretary, The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Maharashtra, and Shri Vivek Ramchandra Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing promotion of Respondent No.4.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Tribunal order dated 30 September 2013 and stay of its operation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste employee not party to Original Application, challenged Tribunal order allowing promotion of Respondent No.4 (V.J. (A) category) as Secretary, Public Works Department.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 927 of 2012 on 30 September 2013 directing promotion of Respondent No.4.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal order was erroneous and affected his rights as a Scheduled Caste employee.
Respondents raised preliminary objection that petitioner lacked locus standi and had alternative remedy under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Administrative Tribunal is not maintainable when the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste category, who was not party to Original Application No. 927 of 2012, has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal...
So far as the power of Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain and/or to consider the issue revolving around the Civil Services is not in dispute, but the aspect of exercising jurisdiction and entertaining such Petition by considering the statutory alternate remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...
Procedural History
Original Application No. 927 of 2012 was filed by Respondent No.4 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which allowed it on 30 September 2013. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 10463 of 2013 on 11 November 2013. Preliminary objection raised on 15 January 2014. Matter heard finally on 12 February 2014 and dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
