The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that rejected a promotion claim due to non-exhaustion of alternative remedy, confirming the Tribunal's decision.
Writ petition dismissed confirming the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO
WRI T PETI TI ON No.39559 OF 2018
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.2422 of 2018 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.2018, taking note of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal was available to the petitioner-applicant and holding that he ought not to have approached the Tribunal straightaway in the light of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’). The prayer of the petitioner in the O.A. was to declare the proceedings dated 24.10.2018 of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Zone-IV, Kadapa, YSR District, rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant permanently on the ground that he was not entitled to such promotion in terms of Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, as illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court.
It is however not in dispute that the petitioner-applicant has the remedy of filing an appeal against the aforestated proceedings dated 24.10.2018. The Tribunal took note of Section 20 of the Act of 1985, which ordinarily bars admission of applications unless other remedies are exhausted. In the light of the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in this regard, we are not inclined to interfere.
As the petitioner-applicant still has time to prefer an appeal, the writ petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Needless to state, as and when an appeal is filed by the petitioner-
2
applicant, the same shall be dealt with by the appellate authority expeditiously keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court on the subject issue.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J
_________________ M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 02.11.2018 PGS/IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the application due to availability of alternative remedy under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Unsuccessful Applicant
State of Andhra Pradesh / Respondents
Sanjay Kumar
M. Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
