IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7125 OF 2021

1. Chaitali Jitendra Katariya Age : 27 years, R/o. Loni Budruk, Vitthalnagar, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar

2. Arif Rafiq Patel Age : 34 years, R/o. Sakur, Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioners Versus

1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ahmednagar .. Respondents …

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6255 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7125 OF 2021 AND WRIT PETITION NO.8602 OF 2021 Nikita Mahendrasing Rajput Age : 28 years, Occu : Household, R/o. Plot No.08, Rajput Colony, Near Maharana Pratap High School, Devpur, Dhule .. Petitioner Versus

1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dhule. .. Respondents …

Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, Advocate for the Petitioners in both the matters Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both the matters …

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 22-08-2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 29-08-2022 JUDGMENT (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.):

. It has been 37 long years since enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and establishment of Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India for adjudication of disputes in respect of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State. However, despite availability of remedy of seeking adjudication in respect of service matters before the Administrative Tribunals, several writ petitions still continue to be directly filed before this Court under specious plea that mere existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have before us two such petitions filed by the candidates / petitioners, who are seeking recruitment to the post of Talathi in the Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra.

2. The petitioners in both the petitions have participated in the selection process initiated by the District Collector, Ahmednagar and Dhule for recruitment on the post of Talathi. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the action of the State Government in publishing notification dated 15.06.2021 as well as issuing Government Resolution dated 31.05.2021 allowing candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Category (SEBC) to change the reservation category to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category thereby impinging upon their chances of being selected and appointed on the post of Talathi.

3. There is no dispute that the grievance sought to be redressed before us in the present petition is a service matter within the meaning of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act of 1985’). There is also no dispute that the petitioners have the remedy of filing applications under Section 19 of the Act of 1985 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to decide it.

4. When we expressed to Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how the petitioners can directly approach this Court in respect of their cause of action which is admittedly covered by Section 14 of the Act of 1985 and in respect of which the petitioners have remedy under Section 19, numerous reasons have been cited before us urging us to entertain the present writ petitions rather than relegating the petitioners to the Administrative Tribunal in view of availability of an alternate remedy.

5. Mr.