The petitioner seeking compassionate appointment approached the respondent department viz., the Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. The said request, having been considered, was turned down as not feasible by impugned order dated 27.02.2017. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this present writ petition in W.P.(MD) SR No.24235 of 2018.

2. While scrutinising the papers, the Registry has raised objection that since the order passed by the respondents are the department of the Central Government, therefore, in view of the functioning of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the CAT Rules of Practice 1993, the grievance of the petitioner can be agitated only before the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction and not before this Court. However, on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seems to have made an endorsement stating that, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 553 – Union of India and others Vs. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd., the power of the High Court to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature and therefore, it cannot be curtailed by other provision of Constitution or a statute and the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition, but, it is only a rule of discretion to be exercised depending on facts of each case. Therefore, the learned counsel seems to have pressed the maintainability of the writ petition. That is why the matter is posted before this Court to evaluate about the maintainability of this writ petition.

3. I have heard Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, there were two objections raised by the Registry of this Court. One is that the writ petition seeking the prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be filed before this Court and the second one is that the issue can be agitated only before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. Insofar as the said objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make submissions by relying upon the following two decisions. One is reported in AIR 2013 SC 3365 in the matter of MGB Gramin Bank V. Chakrawarti Singh and another one is reported in (2010) 14 SCC 553 in the matter of – Union of India V. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if at all any service matters to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the same may be pertaining to the recruitment. Here, it is not a recruitment, but only an appointment is sought for on compassionate ground by the petitioner. Therefore, the same need not be filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but it can be agitated before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon para 7 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC 553 cited supra, would submit that, the plenary power and jurisdiction of this Court vest with them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away or ousted by the mere fact of availability of alternative remedy. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this writ petition would be maintainable before this Court.

7. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record.

8. At the outset, this Court is of the view that, the learned counsel is totally under misconception the objection raised by the Registry with regard to the maintainability.

9. It is not the objection of the Registry that the grievance is with regard to the compassionate appointment. The objection is that, it should be agitated only before the Central Administrative Tribunal and not before this Court.

10. Th