RADHAKRISHNA KURUP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Sr.Adv.V.P.Seemandini, for the petitioners yesterday and today further, following the submissions made by her earlier on 29.11.2013. On that day, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the queries raised by the Bench, the following order was minuted:

(2.) In an attempt to show that this original petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to be entertained by this Court, the learned senior counsel, today argued that the quality of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is wide enough and the High Court is empowered to deal with extraordinary situations without insisting on the petitioners taking recourse to the alternate statutory remedy, including under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. For this, dilating on the nature of reasoning in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, 1997 3 SCC 261, she argued that the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunals is, essentially, supplementary and not substitutory to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, reference was made to T.K.Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. and Others, 2003 6 SCC 581 to point out that the High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to meet unprecedented extraordinary situation having no parallel. Making pointed reference to the contents of paragraph No.5 of the judgment in T.K.Rangarajan as reported in SCC, it was further pointed out that, while it is true that extraordinary powers are required to be sparingly used, the facts of a given case, when reveal that it is a most extraordinary one which calls for interference by the High Court, the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could be invoked, notwithstanding the provisions in the Administrative Tribunals Act. She further argued that the crux of the issues is as to the correctness of Ext.P10 judgment rendered by the Division Bench in 2010. According to her, it runs contrary to the contents of Exts.P4 to P7 judgments, however that, the Tribunal, being an inferior authority, would be obliged in the hierarchy of judicial institutions to follow Ext.P10 judgment and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by the petitioners litigating before the Tribunal. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the findings in Ext.P10 judgment on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions are contrary to the well settled principles of interpretation of statutes and therefore, there is fair room within the framework of the law laid by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar and T.K.Rangarajan to intervene. With this, she further submitted that on a rough estimate, above 40,000 employees through out the State would get entangled in litigations at different spheres on the question of seniority, reversion etc. on the basis of district-wise seniority lists that would be prepared or have already been prepared following the directions of the Tribunal to give effect to Ext.P10 judgment.

(3.) We have looked into the contents of Exts.P4 to P7 judgments vis- a-vis, the contents of Ext.P10 judgment. On an anxious and deeper consideration, we deem it appropriate to dissuade ourselves, from stating anything further on the findings in those judgments vis-a-vis the arguments raised on the basis of the availability, efficacy and interpretation of the relevant Rules, including the question as to whether a particular Rule or substitution of a Rule was made with retrospective effect or not. We say so because, we would further proceed to consider the question whether we would entertain this original petition, notwithstanding the precedents noted in the order dated 29.11.2013 quoted above.