Shivani Chaurasia vs Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Shivani Chaurasia vs Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3/competent authority within two weeks; the same to be considered and decided within a further period of eight weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court notwithstanding the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

The right of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a constitutional right before the High Court which cannot be taken away by any statutory provision, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not indicate any absolute bar on entertaining a writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The preliminary objections regarding maintainability raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are rejected; without adjudicating the merits, the petition is held to be maintainable.

Key takeaways

Without entering into the merits, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3/competent authority within two weeks, and such representation shall be considered and decided by respondent No. 3/competent authority within a further period of eight weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) — Writ petition by Shivani Chaurasia against Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan seeking mandamus to decide her representation dated 9.12.2025 in light of the Delhi High Court order dated 4.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 1921/2024 (Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and Another Vs. Bhairvi Kumari & Others) — preliminary objection of non-maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected — judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away by any statutory provision, and availability of alternative remedy is no absolute bar, as held in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 — without adjudicating the merits, petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3/competent authority within two weeks; respondent No. 3 to consider and decide it within a further eight weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law — petition disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 3731 of 2026

Shivani Chaurasia

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan Thru. Commissioner New Delhi And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) ew e n ers	: Haridwar Singh (H.D.Singh ) : Pushpila Bisht, A.S.G.I. .....Respondent(s)

Court No. - 18

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as Sri Shreyansh Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following main relief:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Party No -1 to decide the representation of petitionr dated 9.12.2025 in light of the order dated 4.12.2025 Passed by Honb,le High Court Delhi in W.P.(C) No- 1921/2024 Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and Another Vs. Bhairvi Kumari & Others."

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court in view of the fact that petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available for approaching to Central Administrative Tribunal concerned in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court passed in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.

Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

It is no doubt true that petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available for approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerned but as has already been held in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) that

WRIA No. 3731 of 2026

2

right of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a constitutional right before the High Court which cannot be taken away by any statutory provision. The decision also does not indicate any absolute bar on entertaining a petition despite availability of alternative remedy.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not adjudicating upon the merits of the case, preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are hereby rejected. Thus, petition is held to be maintainable.

Considering the aforesaid and without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 3/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no. 3/competent authority, within a further period of eight weeks, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.

April 15, 2026 Vinay/-

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench