The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985, and they should resort to the remedy provided under Section 19 before the Administrative Tribunal.

JUDGEMENT

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. It has been 37 long years since enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and establishment of Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India for adjudication of disputes in respect of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State. However, despite availability of remedy of seeking adjudication in respect of service matters before the Administrative Tribunals, several writ petitions still continue to be directly filed before this Court under specious plea that mere existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have before us two such petitions filed by the candidates/petitioners, who are seeking recruitment to the post of Talathi in the Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra.

2. The petitioners in both the petitions have participated in the selection process initiated by the District Collector, Ahmednagar and Dhule for recruitment on the post of Talathi. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the action of the State Government in publishing notification dated 15.06.2021 as well as issuing Government Resolution dated 31.05.2021 allowing candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Category (SEBC) to change the reservation category to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category thereby impinging upon their chances of being selected and appointed on the post of Talathi.

3. There is no dispute that the grievance sought to be redressed before us in the present petition is a service matter within the meaning of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act of 1985’). There is also no dispute that the petitioners have the remedy of filing applications under Section 19 of the Act of 1985 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to decide it.

4. When we expressed to Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how the petitioners can directly approach this Court in respect of their cause of action which is admittedly covered by Section 14 of the Act of 1985 and in respect of which the petitioners have remedy under Section 19, numerous reasons have been cited before us urging us to entertain the present writ petitions rather than relegating the petitioners to the Administrative Tribunal in view of availability of an alternate remedy.

5. Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen submits that mere existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that since the petitioners are yet to become government servants, they are justified in directly approaching this Court in respect of their cause of action of seeking recruitment into the State service. He further submitted that when merely a question of law is involved, the High Court can always entertain a writ petition rather than relegating the parties to an alternate remedy. He submitted that the question of law involved in the present case has been decided by this Court in Vikas Balwant Alase and others Vs. Union of India through Secretary and Others in Writ Petition No. 2663 of 2021 decided on 29.07.2022 and therefore, this Court will have to merely follow the decision and issue a declaration in favour of the petitioners. Lastly, he submitted that since the present petitions are pending since 22.02.2021, it would not be appropriate at this stage to relegate the petitioners to an alternate remedy.

6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen relied upon the following decisions:

(i) State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1132

(ii) Bal Krishna Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995) 1 SCR 148

(iii) National Company, Represented by its Managing Partner Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corp