HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW AFR Reserved on- 11.02.2026 Delivered on- 17.02.2026 Amit Gupta And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anagh Misra And WRIT - A No. - 132 of 2026 Bikash Pachambhawala And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anagh Misra Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Surya Bhan Pandey, learned D.S.G.I. assisted by Mr. Anagh Mishra and perused the record.

2. Instant petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

"Issue a writ order direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the advertisement dated 11.11.2025 with respect to recruitment of two posts of Assistant Store Officer and three post of Private Secretary in AIIMS Raebareli same are annexed as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.-3 to 5 to fill up two vacant posts of Assistant Store Officer and three post of Private Secretary through promotion in AIIMS Raebareli by mechanism provided in office memorandum dated: 20.11.2024 issued by AIIMS New Delhi.

ii. Any appropriate order/direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the writ petition."

3. In Writ A No. 132 of 2026, additionally, the advertisement dated

11.07.2025 is also under challenge.

4. Preliminary objection is raised by counsels for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the advertisement dated 11.11.2025 and 11.07.2025, which are published by the competent authority of All India Institute of Medical Science, Raebareli(hereinafter referred to as "Institution"), under challenge herein, in fact, put the recruitment in motion/process, whereas, the provisions of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1985") prescribes the jurisdiction, power and authority of the administrative tribunals, therefore, the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal sitting at Lucknow.

5. He further submitted that the law rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union Of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125, it has been held in paragraphs 94 to 100 that every suit or case subject matter as given under Article 14, shall be triable before the tribunals, established under the Act 1985. The aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment and order are extracted as under:-

"94. The directions issued by us in respect of making the decisions of Tribunals amenable to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts will, however, come into effect prospectively i.e. will apply to decisions rendered hereafter. To maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings, we have invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling so as not to disturb the procedure in relation to decisions already rendered.

95. We are also required to address the issue of the competence of those who man the Tribunals and the question of who is to exercise administrative supervision over them. It has been urged that only those who have had judicial experience should be appointed to such Tribunals. In the case of Administrative Tribunals, it has been pointed out that the Administrative Members who have been appointed have little or no experience in adjudicating such disputes; the Malimath Committee has noted that at times IPS Officers have been appointed to these Tribunals. It is stated that in the short tenures that these Administrative Members are on t