The Court Rules Writ Petitions Not Maintainable Due to Available Alternative Remedy Through Central Administrative Tribunal
The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed two writ petitions challenging the recruitment advertisement for the posts of Assistant Store Officer and Private Secretary at AIIMS Raebareli. The petitions, filed by Amit Gupta and others, argued that the recruitment violated the prescribed promotion quotas as per the Recruitment Rules for Non-Faculty Posts for New AIIMS, 2015. However, the court found that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy available through the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), rendering the writ petitions not maintainable.
The case, heard by Justice Shree Prakash Singh, revolved around the advertisement published on November 11, 2025, for the recruitment of two posts of Assistant Store Officer and three posts of Private Secretary. The petitioners contended that the recruitment process initiated by AIIMS Raebareli contravened the promotion quotas specified in the 2015 rules. They sought the quashing of the advertisement and a directive for the posts to be filled through promotion.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. They cited the notification transferring jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has the competence to address such recruitment disputes.
In its judgment, the court emphasized the jurisdictional authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal, as outlined in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The court noted that the petitioners failed to utilize this statutory remedy, which has the jurisdiction to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules.
The court referenced the landmark judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India, which affirmed that tribunals possess the competence to adjudicate such matters and emphasized that tribunals serve as the primary forum for addressing disputes within their domain.
Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which mandates the transfer of pending cases to the tribunal upon its establishment. The court determined that the writ petitions, filed prior to the notification transferring jurisdiction to the tribunal, should be dismissed as the tribunal was the appropriate forum for redressal.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The ruling underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court and reaffirms the tribunal's role in adjudicating service matters.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment rules violation - Advertisement for recruitment challenged on grounds of violating prescribed promotion quotas in Rules 2015 for posts of Assistant Store Officer and Private Secretary - Held, writ petition not maintainable due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 14 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and notification transferring jurisdiction to Central Administrative Tribunal.
Statutory provision(s): Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Sections 14 and 29, Recruitment Rules For Non-Faculty Posts For New AIIMS, 2015 Article 226 of the Constitution
Amit Gupta v. U.O.I., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2855734
