ORDER :

Whether the challenge to the decision, classifying the petitioner as a General Merit candidate, rejecting the petitioner’s claim to be under category 2B/KAHK, for selection to the post of a government school teacher, is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?.

2. The question referred to above has arisen as the decision of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Raichur is under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Contending that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to consider the question raised above, and justifying the challenge in this writ petition before this court, Sri. K.M. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions.

a) The issue, in this case, is pertaining to the petitioner’s caste and income and the same is outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'). This issue has to be considered only by this Court in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

b) Assuming that the Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to deal with this matter under Section 15 of the Act, the alternative remedy by itself will not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

c) The present writ petition is to enforce the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the persons who are similarly placed, are classified in the 2B/KAHK category. The petitioner is questioning the discrimination and infringement of her fundamental right under Article 14 of Constitution of India.

4. Sri. K. M. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs vs. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla and others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 328 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and others vs. Smt. Yogeshwari and others in W.P.No.24115/2018 c/w with W.P.No.3390/20218.

5. It is further urged that in similar circumstances the High Court at Principal Bench as well as the Bench at Dharwad, granted interim order and entertained the writ petition.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents would refer to Sections 4, 15 and 28 of the Act 1985 and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. He would place reliance on the judgment of L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. He would further submit that the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shivaprasad Biradar vs. Karnataka Lokayukta has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar, and has held that the dispute relating to service under the State are to be dealt in the first instance by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1985.

7. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the exceptional circumstances where the writ petitions are entertained, despite alternative remedies are not made out by the petitioner.

8. This Court has considered the contentions and also perused the judgments cited.

9. Since the objection is relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the writ petition on the premise that the remedy is said to be available under the Act, the reference has to be made to the preamble of the Act and the provisions of the Act.

10. The preamble to the Act, 1985 reads as under:

"An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of 1[any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution]and for matters connected therew