Sandeep Ashok Raut And Another vs Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 25173 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sandeep Ashok Raut And Another vs Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, ... on 2 September, 2024

Author: Nitin W. Sambre

Bench: Nitin W. Sambre

2024:BHC-NAG:9867-DB
                 16-WP-5036-2024.odt                                             1


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5036 of 2024
                                               Sandeep Ashok Raut and anr.
                                                            vs.
                   Union of India, through its Secretary, Railway Ministry, (Railway Board), New Delhi
                                                        and others.
                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                                   Court's or Judge's Order
                 Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
                 or directions and Registrar's order
                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Mr. D.L.Dharmadhikari, Advocate with Mr. R. M. Pande, Advocate for petitioners.
                        Mr C.J.Dhumne, ASGI, for respondents.

                        CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE :- 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2024

P. C.

We have heard Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the

petitioners on preliminary objection of availability of effective alternate

remedy.

2. The prayer in the petition is, for issuance of

directions/declaration that the list of non-eligible candidates

(Annexure-III) dated 08.06.2024 be declared as null and void or may

be quashed and set aside.

3. The petitioners have an alternate remedy of approaching before

the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

4. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel, would invite our attention

to the observations made in paragraph 27 wherein principle of law

which emerges from the discussion and observations in the matter of

Radha Krishnan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others

[(2021) 6 SCC 771] is referred to. According to him, it is only self

impose restriction and not a rule that the High Court should not

exercise jurisdiction in the cases like the present one.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners have remedy of approaching before

the Central Administrative Tribunal against the order impugned. In

our opinion, such remedy is an effective alternate remedy as all the

grievances of the petitioners can be looked into by the Tribunal. Even

otherwise, if the petition is entertained here, the respondents will be

losing their chance of questioning the judgment of the Tribunal, if the

same goes adverse to their interest.

6. That being so, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty

to the petitioners to take recourse to an alternate remedy before the

Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. If the petitioners approach the Central Administrative Tribunal,

we make the selection pursuant to the earlier selection process subject

to outcome of the proceedings to be taken up before the Central

Administrative Tribunal provided the proceedings are taken up within

a period of one week.

8. Order accordingly. No costs.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Andurkar.

Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2024 10:50:28