Patna High Court - Orders
Nitish Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4683 of 2012
======================================================
1. Nitish Kumar, Son of Sri Rajdeo Singh, Resident of Mani Kunj Behind
Chura Mill, Pahari Road, P.O-Bari Pahari P.S. - Agamkuan, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur,
(Vaishali).
2. The Chief Manager (Personnel), E.C. Railway, Hajipur (Vaishali).
3. The Senior Personnel Officer (Recruitment), E.C. Railway, Hajipur
(Vaishali).
4. Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi through Chairman, Railway
Offices Complex, Chutia, Ranchi-834027, Jharkhand.
5. The Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Railway Offices
Complex, Chutia, Ranchi - 834027, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
For the petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the espondents : M/s. Mahesh Prasad & Anil Singh, Advocates.
======================================================
PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
ORDER
4 20-03-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised that this writ petition is not maintainable as the matter relates to service matter of the Central Government and hence petitioner before coming to this Court should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the said purpose.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a single Bench of this Court in case of Uday Patna High Court CWJC No.4683 of 2012 (4) dt.20-03-2012 -2- Shankar Upadhyay Vs. The Union of India & Ors. reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 938, paragraph 4 of which reads as follows:-
" As to the matters pending before the High Court filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution the Hon'ble Supreme Court is consistent. In the matter of L. Chandra Kumar vs. The Union of India and Others [1997(1) PLJR (SC 84], the seven-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered the very issue in respect of the Administrative Tribunals established under Article 323A of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Court held, " In respect of power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded". The Court held that, "Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional...... The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution".
4. No doubt, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution and the said jurisdiction cannot be ousted, but the other Courts and Tribunals have also to perform their role in discharging the Patna High Court CWJC No.4683 of 2012 (4) dt.20-03-2012 -3- powers conferred upon them under the Statutes. Furthermore, the question of alternative remedy is a self imposed restriction by the High Court, which can be ignored in certain circumstances, but that should not be made a rule completely ignoring the other statutes specifically providing alternative remedies.
5. It is not in dispute that Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides that the orders like the impugned order can be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition to file an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The petitioner may file such an original application before the Tribunal within four weeks.
(S.N. Hussain, J) Sunil/-