G M KUMAR Vs. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) it is trite saying that hard cases make bad law. This is illustrated by these appeals. The short facts are as follows: the appellants in response to a notification issued by the Karnataka public service commisesion staked their claims for the post of assistant surgeon cum medical officer in group a, class i. That the applications were made within the prescribed time. It was also accompanied by fee as well as the documents in support of the canedidature. Unfortunately, for them, in one case though the requisite fee of Rs. 22/- has been paid, it came to be rejected on the wrong premise that there was a deficit while in the case of other apepellant only Rs. 18/- had been paid as against prescribed fee of Rs. 22/- and that deposit came to be made good later. Nevertheless, these apeplications came to be rejected on account of deficit. The rejection of these applications were sought to be questioned in W.P. No. 33/1991 and W.P. No. 26269/1990. The learned judge (G.P. Shivaprakash, J.) Was of the view that the writ petitions could not be entertained in view of secetions 15 and 28 of the administrative tribunals Act, 1985 (for short the act), since they provide for exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of recruitement. Accordingly, he dismissed the writ petietions. Hence, these appeals.

(2.) the learned counsel for the appellant surges that as on today the position has become difficult for the appellants. The writ petitions were entertained in the first instance. Interim directions were issued in both the cases, calling upon the Karnataka public service commission to interview the appellants. In fact, they have been interviewed. However, their results are yet to be announced. Presently, the appellants canenot move the tribunal because there is no karenataka administrative tribunal since there is only one member, who cannot dispose of the mateters. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that one member cannot function as tribunal and it must sit always as a bench. Therefore, there is no other go than to request this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue necessary direction since the principle of ubi jus ibi idem remedium must apply. This is the only contention urged before us.

(3.) we fully appreciate the piquant situation under which the appellants are placed. But, we are afraid the appellants are knocking at the wrong door. We have not the slightest hesitation in holding that having regard to the comprehenesive language employed in Section 15 of the Act, we will have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition itself much less the writ appeal. We may at once look at Section 15 of the Act. That states in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 as follows: