Jurisdiction Overruled: Allahabad High Court Directs AIIMS Recruitment Conflict to Administrative Tribunal

In a significant ruling concerning the scope of judicial review in public employment matters, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed as "not maintainable" a series of writ petitions filed by employees of AIIMS Raebareli. The court held that disputes regarding the recruitment of Assistant Store Officers and Private Secretaries must be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Conflict: Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment

The dispute centered on advertisements published in 2025 by AIIMS Raebareli for the recruitment of two Assistant Store Officers and three Private Secretaries. The petitioners, represented by counsel Anand Dubey, argued that the institute’s decision to pursue direct recruitment violated the 'Recruitment Rules for Non-Faculty Posts for New AIIMS, 2015'. They contended that a significant percentage of those posts should, by rule, be filled through promotion.

The petitioners sought to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the Institute’s actions constituted an "illegal exercise of power," thereby bypassing the need for alternative remedies.

The Preliminary Objection: A Question of Forum

Counsel for the Respondents raised a firm preliminary objection, citing Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They argued that because the Union Government had notified the institution under the Act on January 13, 2026, the jurisdiction to handle these service disputes rested exclusively with the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Referencing the landmark Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , the respondents asserted that the tribunal acts as the court of first instance for service matters, and bypassing this forum in favor of the High Court undermines the statutory framework intended to provide "speedy and efficient justice."

Legal Analysis: The Mechanics of Section 29

The Court’s analysis hinged on the definition of "pending proceedings" under the 1985 Act. While the petitioners filed their writ petition on January 8, 2026—just five days before the official notification of the Institute—the court affirmed that Section 29 of the Act provides a clear mechanism for the transfer of such cases.

Justice Shree Prakash Singh noted that the mandate of the law is clear: any matter pending before a court at the time of a tribunal’s establishment regarding a subject matter within its jurisdiction must be transferred accordingly.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the hierarchy of judicial oversight in service matters:

• On the Competence of Tribunals: "The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules."
• On the Role of High Courts: "It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations... by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned."
• On Applicability: "The institution, who published the advertisement for recruitment of posts, has been notified by the Central Govt. on 13.01.2026, on the appointed day, the instant writ petition is pending."

The Verdict and Implications

Observing that the petitioners failed to demonstrate why their case did not fall squarely within the domain of the Administrative Tribunal, the High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable. However, the court granted the petitioners the liberty to pursue their remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

This ruling reinforces the sanctity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, affirming that for central government employees and those in bodies under its control, the tribunal is the designated forum for resolving recruitment and service-related grievances. For future litigants, the decision serves as a reminder to exhaust the remedy provided by specialized tribunals, lest they face dismissal on the grounds of forum non-conveniens or lack of maintainability.