Smt. Mhatre, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in both these petitions are the same, they have been heard together, with the consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in both these petitions is to the selection of the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) to the posts of Civil Engineering Assistants, pursuant to the advertisement No. 2/2008. The petitioners claim that these respondents did not possess the qualifications required for being selected to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants, in consonance with the recruitment rules. The petitioners contend that each of them had undertaken a special course expected to be completed by candidates aspiring to be Civil Engineering Assistants, whereas the respondents had no such qualification. In essence, therefore, what has been challenged in the present petition, is the selection of the respondents to the posts of the Civil Engineering Assistants.

3. Mr. Khandare, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and its officers, who are arraigned as the respondents in the petitions, and Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petitions. They pointed out that the petitioners ought to have approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, to have their grievance redressed, rather than preferring writ petitions in this court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. They have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein a bench of seven learned judges has held that the only remedy available to employees challenging the recruitment rules for posts in State Govt., or with respect to any service matter, is to file an application before the Administrative Tribunal, under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Counsel therefore, submitted that the writ petitions ought to be dismissed in limine.

4. Mr. Mantri, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners should not be driven to approach the Administrative Tribunal at this stage, because all of them would soon be crossing the age limit prescribed for being appointed as Civil Engineering Assistants. He submitted that since there are no disputed facts, it would be pointless to approach the Administrative Tribunal. According to him, the petitioners had, in fact, chosen to curtail their right of approaching the Administrative Tribunal and availing of the consequential remedy, in case the Administrative Tribunal errs in its decision. He, pointed out that a writ of quo warranto, which is sought in the present petitions against the private respondents, cannot be issued by the Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the only course available to the petitioners, was to approach this Court. He further submitted that although the petitions were filed in the year 2008/2009 and notices had been issued to the respondents, the matters have seen the light of the day before us after almost three years and, therefore, the petitioners are well within their rights to insist on being heard by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. He then submitted that when these matters appeared before successive Division Benches for admission, the respondents had raised the same preliminary objection and the Division Benches were satisfied that the petitioners had made out a case for being heard by this court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. He relied upon several judgments in support of his submission that the petitioners are entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court although a statutory remedy is available to them, as their fundamental rights have been affected. We would presently advert to these judgments.

5. While considering whether Administrative Tribunals const