By the Court.—Since, in both the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of fact and law are involved and both have been heard analogously, they are being decided by this common judgment, having binding effect upon both of them. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23125 of 2004, which has been dealt with herein will be considered as leading case.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to get an appropriate order passed, setting aside the office order dated 14th October, 2003 and the order of rejection of appeal, dated 6/10th February, 2004 and consequential orders in connection therewith. The writ petition was filed on 19th June, 2004 and the parties have exchanged the affidavits.

3. At the time of hearing of the writ petitions, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, raised an objection about the maintainability of such writ petitions directly before the writ Court.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in objection thereto contended that it is normal practice of the High Court that when the affidavits are exchanged and the writ petitions are pending for final hearing since long, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions on account of availability of the alternative remedy, should not be allowed to be raised.

5. However, it appears from the record that in the connected matter a Division Bench of this Court has already observed by an order dated 8th March, 2007 that the question of maintainability of such writ petitions directly before the writ Court is a valid point for due consideration. Against this background, we have to look into certain factual and legal aspects of the matter to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.

6. The petitioner is an employee of National Test House having its head office at Kolkata. This organisation is established with an object of testing, quality evaluation and calibration of material science as a major scientific institution of India. This Institution is at present under the administrative control of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi. We also find from the Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is a Notification dated 5th February, 1993, that in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, in supersession to earlier recruitment Rules, the President of India has made the National Test House (Group ‘A posts) Recruitment Rules, 1993, by way of publication in the official Gazette, for regulating the method of recruitment to Group ‘A’ scientific posts in National Test House, Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Ghaziabad under the Ministry of Commerce, Department of Supply. That apart, it also appears from other relevant documents annexed with the writ petitions that the National Test House is part and parcel of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs. President of India is the rule making authority as per the proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no doubt in construing that the National Test House, if not part and parcel of the Government of India directly, it is included in the other authority, discharging functions solely on behalf of Government of India.

7. The question raised in the instant case, has been finally settled by the judgment of 7 Judges larger Bench, reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 577, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, the ratio of which, as propounded in paragraph 99, is quoted herein :

“99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2 (d) of Article 323-A and clause 3 (d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent be unconstitutional, the jurisdiction conferred upon t