The High Court held that litigants must approach Administrative Tribunals first for recruitment-related matters, as exclusive jurisdiction was conferred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, even for constitutional validity challenges.

JUDGMENT

Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J. -

WRIT PETITION NO.3854 OF 2023

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner describes itself as a non- profit committee/ organization set up to protect the rights of non-tribals of other category in the vicinity of District Palghar. The members of the Petitioner are non-tribal members residing at Palghar. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has about nine members and it is registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1860. The Certificate of Registration of the Petitioner has been issued on 15th March, 2022.

2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification dated 29th August, 2019 issued by the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra (the 'said Notification dated 29th August, 2019').

3. The Petitioner is also challenging the Government Resolutions dated 1st February, 2023 and 28th February, 2023, which have been issued for the implementation of the said Notification dated 29th August, 2019, on the ground that they are ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the fundamental rights of the members of the Petitioner, who are nontribals, under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. Prayers (a) and (b) of the Petition, which seek final reliefs, read as under:-

'(a) This Honble Court be pleased to declare that the Notifications dated 9t June 2014 (Exhibit D hereto) and 29th August 2019 (Exhibit-N hereto) and consequential Government Resolutions dated 01.02.2023 (Exhibit O hereto) and 28.02.2023 (Exhibit P hereto) issued by the Governor of Maharashtra are arbitrary unreasonable, discriminatory unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of Constitution of India and be further pleased to strike down the same in the interest of equity and justice;

(b) This Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondents not to make any appointments in pursuant to the Notifications dated 9h June 2014 (Exhibit-D hereto) and 29th August 2019 (Exhibit-Nhereto) and consequential Government Resolutions dated 01.02.2023 (Exhibit O hereto) and 28.02.2023 (Exhibit P hereto) issued by the Governor of Maharashtra.'

4. The State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1) filed an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 9th August, 2023 of Sumant N. Bhange. In the said Affidavit-in-Reply, Respondent No.1 did not raise any issue of maintainability of the Writ Petitions.

5. However, the learned Advocate General raised the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition orally. On maintainability, it is the case of Respondent No.1 that, in view of the statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the 'Tribunals Act'), and in view of the law laid down in that regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Petitioners are prevented from directly approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal.

6. Since the issue of maintainability raised by the learned Advocate General, on behalf of Respondent No.1, is a pure issu