Case Note & Summary
This batch of writ petitions was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging certain circulars issued by the State Government concerning reservation in public services, specifically on the grounds that the circulars were unconstitutional and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court on vertical and horizontal reservation. The petitioners, who were candidates for recruitment under the State service, sought to quash these circulars. The respondent State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the petitioners ought to have approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the matters pertained to service disputes. The State relied on the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 to support its contention. The petitioners opposed the objection on two grounds: first, that the Administrative Tribunal had consistently taken a view adverse to their contentions, which was contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court; and second, that even if they approached the Tribunal, the matter would eventually come to the High Court, causing delay. The Court considered the objection and held that while the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226, it may refuse to entertain a petition if an efficacious alternative remedy exists. The Court found that the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, and therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Petitioners challenged State Government circulars on reservation in public services - State raised objection that petitioners must approach Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act - Petitioners opposed on grounds of consistent adverse view by Tribunal and delay - Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, but the High Court may refuse to entertain the petition if the alternative remedy is efficacious - However, in this case, the Court found that the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedy and dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging State Government circulars on reservation in public services are maintainable before the High Court in view of the alternative remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable, holding that the petitioners must first approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petitions before High Court
- Alternative remedy under Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985
- Section 15
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
