Kerala High Court
Dr.Sudhakar T vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 31 December, 2012
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/19TH POUSHA 1934
WA.No. 37 of 2013 () IN WP(C).31234/2012
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).31234/2012 DATED 31-12-2012
APPELLANT(S)/NAME AMD ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
-----------------------------------------------------------
DR.SUDHAKAR T.
S/O.LATE VENUGOPAL REDDY,KARUNYA HOUSE
DOOR NO. 19/543,KOTTUVALLY,KAITHARAM P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
RESPONDENT(S)/NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESNETED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. REGIONAL OFFICER
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,KAKKANADU
ERNAKULAM.
BY SC SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 37 of 2013
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 IN WP(C).
NO.31234/12.
ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED
3.1.2013 EVIDENCING REGISTRATION OF THE APPELLANT AS A
PRACTITIONER IN MODERN MEDICINE UNDER THE TRAVANCORE
COCHIN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, 1953.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 37 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The appellant is before us challenging the dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal has been established to consider the service matters pertaining to the State services and this Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain Writ Petitions in respect of such matters.
2. We are of the opinion that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in such matters, despite the argument of the learned counsel that the establishment of an Administraive Tribunal does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of this Court has, in Basil Attipetty @ Basil.A.G v. Union of India and Others (2012(1) KLT 841), held as under:
".....It is a settled position by virtue of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 that the administrative Tribunal on constitution shall be the first Court of contest for service matters over WA.37/13 2 which they have jurisdiction and the High Court will be only exercising judicial review that too by Division Bench of the High Court. Even going by the settled law on judicial review, High Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction when there is an effective alternate remedy for the party....."
Respectfully following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, we dismiss the Writ Appeal, however, without costs.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vgs9.1