VINAY SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though notices have been issued to the respondents, but during the course of hearing of this petition today it has transpired that the petitioner is an officer belonging to the All India Service Cadre and as the matter pertains to service dispute of a member of the All India Services, it is only the Central administrative Tribunal which has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner was directed to address this Court on the question of jurisdiction.

(2.) SHRI M. N. Krishna Mani, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, argued that even though petitioner is a member belonging to the All india Services, but he seeks enforcement of a Notification issued by the government of India and its compliance by the State of Madhya Pradesh under article 257 (1) of the Constitution of India and as the act of the State government amounts to violating the fundamental rights available to the petitioner under the Constitution, it is argued by him that this Court can interfere in the matter and it is not necessary for the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1985' ).

(3.) PLACING reliance on the various judgments and taking me through the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said judgments, learned senior Advocate vehemently argued that this is a fit case where arbitrariness on the part of State of Madhya Pradesh is writ large and as the same amounts to depriving the rights guaranteed to the petitioner, fundamental in nature under the Constitution, interference by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the Constitution, can be made.