MUKESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 28.9.2004 whereby the date fixed for verification of the certificate of diploma holders, who had completed their apprenticeship period with the Opposite Party No. 8, has been postponed to a future date. An objection has been raised by Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the question of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. According to him, against the order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioners have aremedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Pandey submitted that an apprentice, Jaideep Shukla alongwith few others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against the impugned order but the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2004 dismissed the original application, against which they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36 (S/B) 2005 whereby following order was passed :

(3.) According to the learned Counsel since the Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the order dated 28.9.2004 and against which this Court intervened therefore it would be a futile bid if the petitioners are relegated to an alternative remedy. In this connection he placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in T.K. Rangrajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 581. On the strength of the said judgment, Sri Pandey submitted that if unprecedented extraordinary situation arises then filing of a writ petition cannot be an absolute bar on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the person who approaches the High Court under Article 226. He further submits that in view of the fact that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the earlier petitioners who had approached this Court and where upon the aforesaid order was passed, therefore, filing of application before the Tribunal would be without any purpose.