The court reiterates that when an alternate efficacious remedy exists, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked, emphasizing the principle of exhausting statutory remedies.

1. The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent Bank as a 'Peon' on 23.11.2017. She was confirmed in service after completing her probation. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by ExtP17 order issued by the President of 1st respondent holding that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and the consequent order of termination from service. The petitioner asserts that the action is against the mandate of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder

2. Sri. Swathi Kumar B.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Exts.P14 and P15 judgments that Ext.P17 was passed. The learned counsel submits that this Court had directed that all relevant aspects and rival claims be considered and the statutory provisions scrupulously adhered to while taking a decision. Referring to Ext.P17, it is submitted that none of these aspects were considered by the concerned respondent while passing Ext.P17 order.

3. In response, the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Society submits that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy in approaching the Jurisdictional Forum by invoking S.69 of the Co - operative Societies Act.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced and I have gone through the records. I find that it is pursuant to the directions issued by this in Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P15 judgments that the Committee has proceeded to pass the order impugned. The petitioner therefore cannot raise a contention that the order has been passed wholly without jurisdiction. S.69 of the KCS Act confers powers on the Co - operative Arbitration Court and Registrar to decide disputes mentioned therein. S.62(2)(d) provides that for the purpose of sub-section (1) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies including their promotion and inter se seniority shall also be deemed to be a dispute which could be decided by the authorities mentioned therein. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have a remedy in approaching the jurisdictional authority by invoking S.69 of the Co - operative Societies Act.

5. The question therefore is whether when the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy, which is effective and efficacious, there is any justification in approaching this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435 have outlined the principles. It was held as follows in paragraph 27 of the judgment.

27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

27.1. The power under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entert