Litigant Can't Keep Waiting For Adjudication If Competent Forum Not Functioning: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Dismiss Writ In Service Matter
"It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently. The remarks were made by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking dismissal of a petition relating to recruitment in Civil Service, on the ground of...
"It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently.
The remarks were made by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking dismissal of a petition relating to recruitment in Civil Service, on the ground of alternate remedy. The petition was filed before the High Court due to admitted vacancy in Central Administrative Tribunal at the time.
The Bench, while dismissing the application filed by the respondents, observed,
"Therefore, any litigant cannot be left remediless. It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning. It cannot also be the intention of the legislation to make a litigant suffer because of the inaction or lacuna on the part of the system. The fact of the CAT not functioning at the relevant time being not disputed, the dismissal of the writ petition at this stage i.e. after four years of filing of the same and being entertained by this Court, would not be in the interest of justice now only on the ground of alternative remedy."
Essentially, the court, on 29.05.2018, directed the respondents to keep one post of Section Supervisor (Examination Quota) vacant while filling the said posts vide the Departmental Examination which was scheduled to be held in June, 2018. The present writ petition was entertained on the ground that the Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal was not available/not functioning at that relevant time. Now, an application has been preferred by the respondents with the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition.
It has been averred in the application that Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provide for a specific bar in the matters pertaining to the recruitment to any All India Service or to any Civil Service of the Union. It has also been submitted that the jurisdiction to decide such matters lies with the CAT and in terms of Section 15(4), there is a specific bar for exercise of such jurisdiction by any other Authority or Tribunal. The counsel for the respondents submitted at present the CAT is functioning and therefore, the petitioner be relegated to the said Authority.
The court noted that the application does not contradict the said fact that the Tribunal was not functioning or not available at the time when the present writ petition was filed. The court stated that there is no dispute on the position of law that an alternative remedy does lie before the CAT in the service matters pertaining to All India Services or Civil Services governed by the Union.
The court, while observing that any litigant cannot be left remediless, stated that in the present matter, the writ petition had been entertained only because of the fact that the competent Authority i.e. the CAT was not functioning/available at the relevant time. The court also added that is not because of any fault on the part of the petitioner that the writ petition had been filed before the court and the same being entertained once, now after a period of four years and after the service of the notices on the respondents, it would not be appropriate to relegate the parties to the Tribunal.
Moreover, the court refused to accept the application of the respondents for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy because of the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case.. Placing reliance on Har Kaur Chadha & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors (2016) of the Delhi High Court, it was observed by the court that to relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy at this stage would needlessly cause delay and prejudice the petitioner.
Adv. Shreyansh Mardia appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Adv. Yashpal Khileree appeared on behalf of the respondent(s).
Case Title: Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156