PRADEEP KANT AND KAMAL KISHORE, JJ.

( 1 ) THE petitioner R. P. Pandey, who was working as Deputy General Manager in the U. P. Power corporation Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has filed Writ Petition No. 734 (SB) of 2002, challenging the order of his compulsory retirement said to have been passed in exercise of the powers under Regulations 2 (b) and 2 (c) (i) of the U. P. State Electricity Board (Retirement of UPSEB Employees) Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1975 ).

( 2 ) THE arguments at considerable length have been raised by both the parties but the controversy revolves around the following two questions, namely, (i) whether the petitioner be relegated to the remedy of U. P. Public Services Tribunal and in the presence of such remedy, the writ petition is maintainable or not and; (ii) whether the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated, as the adverse material in the shape of certain adverse entries or certain minor punishments stood wiped of in view of the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer (Deputy General Manager) on 5. 10. 2000, the criteria of which promotion was merit; or in view of the Regulations, 1975 the overall assessment could have been done by the Screening committee as well as the Appointing Authority which would include even that adverse material which existed even prior to the aforesaid promotion.

( 3 ) THE existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, is a legal proposition, which does not require any detailed reasons. It is also not open to debate that in case an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the High Court normally would not interfere straightaway under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also established principle of law that self restraint is exercised by the High Court in dealing with such matters, which otherwise can be looked into by the Special Forums or Statutory Authorities. Merely the bar in granting any interim relief by a special Forum or Tribunal created for the purpose of adjudicating such disputes would also not be a ground in itself to permit the aggrieved person to by-pass the alternative remedy and to entertain the petition straightaway in writ jurisdiction unless there are some cogent reasons for permitting such a challenge straightaway in writ jurisdiction. The exceptions, however, have been well defined by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade marks, Mumbai and Ors. , (1998) 8 SCC (sic), the Supreme Court has laid down the. following principles for the guidance for the High Court in determining the forum in a matter where efficacious alternative remedy is available and has observed that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas corpus; Mandamus; Prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights contained in Part 111 of the constitution but also for "any other purpose".

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court further held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition but the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in atleast following contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; or (ii) where there has been a violation of principle of natural justice; or (iii) where the, order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (iv) the vires of an Act is challenge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document