The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unavailability of the Central Administrative Tribunal at the time of filing a writ petition may justify the court's decision to entertain the petition, even if an alternative remedy exists under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

ORDER

1. The matter comes upon an application preferred on behalf of the respondents with the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition.

2. It has been averred in the application that Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 ('the Act of 1985') provide for a specific bar in the matters pertaining to the recruitment to any All India Service or to any Civil Service of the Union. It has been submitted that the jurisdiction to decide to such matters lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT') and in terms of Section 15(4), there is a specific bar for exercise of such jurisdiction by any other Authority or Tribunal.

Section 15(4) of the Act of 1985 reads as under:- 15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals:-

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall not extend to, or be exercisable in relation to, any matter in relation to which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends or is exercisable.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgments passed in Union of India & Ors. v. Deep Chand Pandey and Anr. reported in 1992 (4) SCC 432 (decided on 27.08.1992); Union of India (UOI) & Ors. v. Parma Nand reported in 1989 (2) SCC 177 (decided on 14.03.1989); judgment passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Vinod Kumar v. H.R.T.C. & Ors. reported in ILR 1995 1 HP 121 (decided on 30.12.1994) and order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5192/2020; Prahalad Kumawat v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. (decided on 09.09.2020).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Har Kaur Chadha & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.; Writ Petiton (Civil) No.11498/2016 (decided on 05.09.2019). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that at present the Central Administrative Tribunal is functioning and therefore, the petitioner be relegated to the said Authority.

5. In the present matter, the notices had been issued to the respondent Authorities on 29.05.2018.

The order dated 29.05.2018 reads as under:-

'It is submitted by the petitioner that this Court on previous occasions on account of non-availability of the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has granted indulgence and relies on certain orders and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, wherein observations in this regard have been made.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable in five weeks.

Notices when issued be given 'dasti' to the petitioner/learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents are directed to keep one post of Section Supervisor (Examination Quota) vacant while filling the said posts vide the Departmental Examination scheduled to be held in June, 2018.'

6. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the present writ petition was entertained by this Court on the ground that the Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal was not available/not functioning at that relevant time.

7. The application as preferred by the respondents also does not controvert the said fact that the Tribunal was not functioning or not available at the time when the present writ petition was filed. There is no dispute on the position of law that an alternative remedy does lie before the CAT in the service matters pertaining to All India Services or Civil Services governed by the Union. But in the present matter, it is clear on record that the writ petition had been entertained only because of the fact that the competent Authority i.e. the CAT was not functioning/available at the relevant time. Therefore, any litigant cannot be left remed