1999 (11) TMI 903 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Availability of alternate remedy.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition.
4. Qualifications for the post of Lower Division Clerk.
5. Revision of pay scale.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Availability of Alternate Remedy:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment was whether the writ petition was maintainable given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 124 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternate remedy, directing that if the appeal was presented within six weeks, it should be entertained and decided on merits without considering the limitation period. The court emphasized that "when an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to a person, the High Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution," except in exceptional cases where the order is wholly without jurisdiction or passed in total breach of principles of natural justice.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated. However, the court noted that the Joint Registrar rescinded the resolution of the Bank after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Bank, as required under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. The court stated, "No opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner."

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:

The petitioner argued that once a writ petition is admitted and at the stage of hearing, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The court, however, observed that "no broad proposition can be laid down that in all cases, where a writ petition has been admitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court will have no discretion at the time of the final hearing to relegate the petitioner to statutory alternate remedy available." The court emphasized that it is a matter of judicial discretion and expediency, and the tendency to bypass alternate remedies must be discouraged.

4. Qualifications for the Post of Lower Division Clerk:

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's qualifications, asserting that he did not possess the minimum qualifications for absorption as a Lower Division Clerk in the Bank. The minimum qualification required was a graduation with a typing speed of 30 words per minute, whereas the petitioner was only a higher secondary pass. The court noted this objection but did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the availability of alternate remedy.

5. Revision of Pay Scale:

The petitioner also raised issues regarding the revision of pay scale based on an award by the Industrial Tribunal dated December 23, 1978. However, the court did not address this issue in detail, as the primary contention was about the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of an alternate remedy.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the special appeal in limine, upholding the learned single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternate remedy. The court extended the protection given by the learned single Judge, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within six weeks from the date of the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.