Petitioner sought direction to consider his candidature for aポスト in the Department of Posts. Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory alternative remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6632 of 2021
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Satyarthi Respondent :- The Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Bishan,Atipriya Gautam,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Agam Narain Roy
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1,2 and 3 and Sri A.N.Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus , directing the Respondents, to consider the candidature of the petitioner for posting against Reserved List for the post of Manager, Mail Motor Service, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, in the recommended list issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), dated 06/10/2016, as the petitioner is already a selected candidate kept in the Reserved List.
b) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus , directing the Respondents, to provide an opportunity tot he petitioner to directly appear in the interview of the vacancies that were advertised vide Advertisement No.09/2019 by the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Manager, Mail Motor Service, Department of Pots, Ministry of Communications , as the petitioner is already a selected candidate kept in the Reserved List of the 2016 Recruitment vide Advertisement No.05/2016."
Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a dispute with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology is notified under Section 14(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short the Act). Accordingly, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of filing of original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India
reported in 1997-LAWS(SC)-3-58.
Since there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the Act, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 SKM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of statutory alternative remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghvendra Satyarthi
The Union Of India
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
