The court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in private employment disputes.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the party-inperson – appellant (original petitioner) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12227 of 2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition. The Special Civil Application No.5630 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the Order No. MKSHAHMCRC/REL-LETTER/271/2021-22 issued by respondent No.1 dated 09.03.2022 and reinstatement the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Both the appeal and the petition are heard together.

2. Brief facts of the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner – appellant herein is a degree holder holding M.D. in Anesthesia from AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent No.1 Dr. M. K. Shah, Medical College of Research Centre on the post of Professor and head of Department (Anesthesia) on 17.03.2017. The party-in-person joined on 18.03.2017. On 12.06.2021, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Medical Superintendent of respondent No.1 – college that one Anesthesia Assistant Ms. Vedangi Prajapati was irregular and remaining absent, who was orally warned in presence of another co-workers.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.06.2021, he received a call from one Dr. Falguni Patel summoning him for interrogation in one Gender Harassment Committee at 10.30 a.m and he appeared and came to know that this was pursuant to a complaint filed by Vedangi Prajapati.

2.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 14.07.2021, as a result of the report of the committee the charge of Head of Department of Anesthesia has been taken over from the petitioner on administrative ground without any prior notice or inquiry report.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 14.07.2021, the appellant - petitioner preferred the abovementioned Special Civil Application, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal.

4. Heard appellant – party-in-person at length, Mr.Mitul Shelat assisted by Ms. Disha Nanavaty, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Vikas Nair, learned advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

5. The appellant – party-in-person has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the settled principle of law. The party-in-person has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the breach of fundamental rights and injustice done to him and only on the ground of alternative remedy, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition which is erroneous and illegal. He has submitted that though the order passed by respondent No.1 is against the principles of natural justice and arbitrary, the learned Single Judge has not considered such aspect in its true and proper spirit and dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground of maintainability of the petition. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge, while considering the seniority list of the Gujarat University, has passed the impugned judgment and order which is against the service law and settled principles of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the University has no authority to prepare the seniority list of any institution. He has submitted that the order is without legal sanctity and outcome of the interrogation of Gender Harassment Committee and on such issue, the petitioner has been removed from the post of the Head of Department. He has also submitted that no any opportunity of hearing was given to him and no charge-sheet was filed and, therefore, the order passed by the respondent – authority is bad in law. He has submitted that the action of reduction in rank is violation of Section 51(A) of the Gujarat University Act and by an order, his future employment opportunity will be affected and the or