The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - Both appeals impugn the order dated 9th October, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.3509/2020, deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petition and of this Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

2. The appeals were entertained and the hearing on merits of W.P.(C) No.3509/2020 before the Single Judge deferred till the decision of these appeals.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the senior counsel for the respondent State of Rajasthan, supporting the UPSC, the counsel for the interveners before the Single Judge and who have filed LPA No. 348/2020, the counsel for the Union of India (UOI), also supporting UPSC and the counsel for the original writ petitioners, opposing these appeals.

4. The writ petition, from which these appeals arise, was filed by 20 Non-State Civil Service (Non SCS) officers of the State of Rajasthan, who claim to be eligible for consideration for induction into Indian Administrative Services (IAS) and who had been called for interviews to be held at Delhi. They were aggrieved from the communication dated 31st December, 2019 of UPSC, of the interviews having been cancelled for the reason of Government of India (GOI) having failed to nominate two members on the interview panel. In the writ petition, the reliefs of (i) direction to the GOI to nominate two members for convening the Selection Committee meeting for the purpose of appointment of eligible candidates amongst the petitioners as IAS officers of Rajasthan cadre, for the year 2018; (ii) issuance of directions to UPSC to convene a meeting at the earliest and to intimate to the writ petitioners the revised schedule for interviews to be conducted by the said Selection Committee, for purposes of appointment of eligible candidates amongst the petitioners as IAS officers of Rajasthan cadre of 2018; and, (iii) quashing of the letter dated 31st December, 2019 issued by UPSC of cancellation of interviews, were sought.

5. Upsc, GOI as well as the State of Rajasthan raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition as well as on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. Application for intervention was also filed by the appellant in LPA No.348/2020, being an officer of Rajasthan State Civil Service/Rajasthan State Administrative Service (SCS), contending that vacancies in excess had been earmarked for Non SCS category, by 'carrying forward' and which 'carrying forward' was under challenge in O.A. NO.291/138/2020 filed by the said appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and which was pending consideration.

6. Vide order dated 28th August, 2020 in LPA No.227/2020, also arising from the aforesaid writ petition and earlier preferred by the intervener, it was directed, that the Single Judge should decide the question of maintainability and territoriality as a preliminary issue.

7. In pursuance thereto, the Single Judge has held the writ petition to be maintainable and this Court to have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

8. The counsel for the UPSC and the senior counsel for the State of Rajasthan have contended that CAT, established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application in relation to matters covered by Section 14 of the said Act and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is barred. Reliance in this regard is placed on para 94 of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 as under:-

"93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitut