r A,,,4 .A, PetitionErs 1 H R 1911 LORIRT OF CiiHATTXg ARE BiLASFiE “mt Petition {SB No“ 4 97 of 2003 ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Chandn’ka >| iasad Sahu, 81C» Shn‘ Phoolchmd Sahu, aged about 3] ycars’ Rf o vmage {CG} ’Ramttsh Kumar Uike, S/o. Shii Ram V‘sm Uiks abet} “moat Q3 wars Rid Elhags Kokach P0s‘ Nathlva Nawagaou,\ ”‘6hs11 355 DISmct Kanker (Cf) mntosh JaJn bio. PUmlshamam Ram Jam agéid dbout 2b yesals Rio Nam Posf Bagcdal Tchsli 3r. D1sta t Kalikvl {CG} Vatsus esponcicnt Siate of Cha‘tttsgarh mrough $acretar§ Paxmhayat Rural Degmtmcgt DKS Bhawan, Maiiiraiaya, Ramur District kalpurwG}. n Genmai Admfmistration Committae, Jlla ' Danbhayat marks: L‘lm““h Chwrmajl Jlla Panchayat Kankm Dxstnct Vamkvr ’CG) Chief Exmuu‘ft: Offivhr, Jlla Pancha 'ai Kamkfu , D1stnct Kanker (CG) KoLadi Post Nakihiva ' Nawagaon Tah511 8r, District Kankaf ' 5 t k ' {W111 Pétitinh under Article 226 of Q16 €onstituti03a of Ihdia} SB; H'on’Me‘ Mr. Sati$h K. Agnihotri, J. Pmsenji: 7 §hn Rahu1 Jha counSel for the nttmoimrs S1311 Amt: 8&0 Govt Advm‘d£e far me Staie > RR gPasses ¢n ‘til‘i$ 2th day i‘Au‘gust, £038) With the consent of Emmi counsel appf:a1ri11g f0r the parties; m - \ \N e‘matter is heaid Enaily. ‘ f ‘ Rs h $RAL §§3E‘ i 8 b rasp followed Oll ondent—authonues have railed to unJerstand the nur‘portv of the onier wherem before passmg the impug ed order dated 2o $008 V ‘{Annexure 13/5) as prmmples 01 natural usuce were requned to be It 1s further contémiad ‘rhai Show cause xlonce was passed / i (3£116 , , opportunity of heariag Was aEord'ed to the pedigioners 1r; resyect of the _ roond, which Wae taken for gassing the impugned oriierL / 3T Mr Jha learned comlsd anpeaxmg for the pe‘mtmners rsiymg 11 a dec1s1oz1 of the Hon’bie Supreme (:ourt m the matter of D.K. adav Vs. J M A. industries Ltdl contends that the fundamental ‘ light oi the petmoners haa beer: mged foiiowing passage. '“13 LAE matter rslating to gmpiovme'mr imcludc the right to continue m S€rvlce ml the x employee reaches superannuauon Gr until 111s seruce is duly termmated 1n accordauce With just fajf and reasonable pmcedure prescnbed under the prowsmns oi the Constitutlon and the ruleS made under provuso to Atucle 3(39 of the eonstltutmn or the staiuiory prov1s1ons or the ' rules, 7 regulatlons or msmlctjons havmg 'sfatutory eavour Thev muSt be comformable to the nghts guaranteed 1n Part HI arm 1V of the Lonsmtuuon Arncle 21 guaramees mght to hfc which mcludes right ,te hvehhood the: depnvatlon thereof must be 1n accordance With just 311d faJr procedure prescnbed by law comiormabk to Amcies 14 331d 1 so\as to be HS} was yaSsed on dijierent‘r‘grOunti. i (1993; 3 sec 259 , Leame& conesel appearing for the @eu'tiohers sbmits that the r ground and theimpugned order dated 23—5—2008c (Annexurel ‘ No show—.oause Vnotice or M1 Jha rehes on the g o 0 Y . v ! ‘ \ \ us ati reaso n/ not faxxcu, p or t Th rcips ‘f l jce in iteral art of th€ uarmé o €quaity asunle b Amd 14 Ay w ‘ maie or aton tn b n Elyer must b fair. m ad wasonabe T spw to te v o a lyrkn gt fair n nabi ad ifi opmsswe a vagaxy e pinhe o natura usti ar€ ng p gan f l sd y ie . n 1a L ci ake y a mpo e st n l he: oer mate the serwe f 11 empoeejwoma roedu c of naturl e. l 4 st bitmi ctio I e fe ft i u ‘amc f h r that to a l into ‘ is oe h our h ai ug the ie t pg tion ‘ eteit s, un t i nhmen r i oni o la 1s e usc eu we a us‘tar suc f riier‘is S ec theo s h end l 3) {have herd arned couel pin or the partis. perused a le ns apearg f e the pleain and cuments apynded thero. dgs xio e et 4} In h mtter o Krisan hander i‘yat Ve Chauma te a f h C ia . The n, Ceatral Tractr Gganatlo an other-$ Thur meaning f the o risn d 3 s o Surem Cot m e Contittn nch ved as ude pe ur th sulo Be obser nr: dual gt uane h “The, funamet rih garted by te Constitution is not only to make an application ‘ for a post umier \the Government but the further nght to be consMercd on ments for the post for which all appheatlon haS been made Of course, the. mght doe not extend to bemg ‘ ‘actuajly appointed to the post for which an application may have been made.” \ ‘2 Am 449) 1962 so 602 1a wcxe is an cssnti mbulh a msttc Amcé 1 nkCS' at ary an; t is not th m ohe acton. bt the suhsta o te orde i5 h ooked , it pn to te ct to 11ft te. veil rd gae efct of he imuned ac to tihd whhn i the L ibdation o mpose puist o s y a mtlw Pair py to sem Jue, Drocdrai qS ll s sbmve. The bstane o the o the oul and the ef§E‘t ref i te resut”. \ a 5) Th€r6 is no' dispute with regald to m6 dictum laid dGwu by the Hon’bls Supreme Court in {ham ittcr of D.K. Yauiav (suyrai and ather cat€na of decisions. This Court, whik considering thus identicai issua in a batch of m'atters’an'sing from lcanceiiation of appointments of‘the ‘ Shiksha Katmis in the matter of iKu. Punam’85 others Vs. State of . €.G. '35 0therss held thai the pxinciples of naiurai justice am roqulrsd to b? comphed Wxth ha 111g regaxd to the facts s11uat10n '~ obtained thcrcin. Tim pmposs of mics of natural' justice is to provem the miscariaga ofjusi‘ice and tile principies of natural ju"tice are apphcablc to tho admwmstmtwe order, 1f such order efh cts ught oi a cmzeo. Subsequently the smnlcirlv amiated Slksha Kainns approached tins Court, who were gxallteo hbet'ty to take muguise i0 alternative statutory forum that‘may })e available to them as there'is appellate provision under the Chhattisgarh Parichayat Shjksh’a "Kazmi (Recruitment ami Conditioos of Sewices) Roles 2607“ 6) ' (3”: the question of availabihtv of altemamve remedy the Lioxi’bie Supreme yourt m the matte; of State of H P. and othexs v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another}, observed as umier: ‘ “17 Wife shali orst deal with the niea regemiiog g ‘ altemati‘re remedy as iaisui by the anpeiiant ‘ State Excepi for a yetiod whee Articie 226 was 7, amended by \the Constituuoo (Forty-seooad ‘ Amendment) Act,1976, the power reiaiiing to , ' ‘altemaiive remedv hao been coasidered to be a , ruie of self—imposed iimitaiioo. It is essentiaiiy a, I rule of policy, convenience and discretion and} never a rule of law. i)espite thdexistence of an - 3 2008 (2} cam; 366 442005) 6 SCC 499 altemauve remedy, 1t 1s w thin the 3nns<i1~hon oi dwcxetton of the: Hlgh Court to gzallt rehef wider article 226 of me Constituiidu At tiw same tune 1t cannot be iost 31%}11 0f that thaugh the matter rclatmg to an aiwrnatlve remsdy ha nothmg to do Wlth the Juiisdlcnon of thr‘ case s normaEy the Hlgh Court shoulxi not mténfere if ' there 1s an adequate efzicaclouS a1t€mat1ve r W the High Court should ensurs that'he has made out a strong case orthat there exist good groumis to invoke, tho oxtraordiuam‘ jun‘sdictiou. 21. In G. Veerappa Pilta v, Raman & Raman Lick CCE v. 31mm!) India Ltd; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. Stae of Trépura Shivgonda Anna Pom? , v. State of Mahard3htra; CA. Abraham v. ITO, Timghur Paper Miils Co, Ltd v. State of OriSsa; I—IB. Gandhi vs, .GOpi Naih and'S'ons; Whirigool Corpn, V, Registrar ofTradé Marks, Tin Piate Co. of India Ltd. v, State ‘Of Bihar, Sheela Devi ‘v, Jaspgzl'Singh and Punjab National Bauk v‘ QC. Krishnan, ibis Court held that Whom hiomrchy ‘ of appeals is provided by the statute, party must xhaust the statutmy remedies before resortiug to Writ jm‘isdiction.” emady. if somebmly apyiJpaches the ,Hlgh Caurt V ithoitt availing the, altcmative remedy provid€d 7) Further applymg the said ratio m the matter of U 3’ $tate Symnmg Co Ltd. vs RS. Pamiey and anothel-E,‘ the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “2L In UP. State Bridge (3013311. Ltti. v. UP; Rajya Setu Nigam S.‘Karmacha1i Sangh, it was ‘held that Wheur the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obiigat'o‘n \under the 5 (2005}3 soc 264 @~ ‘ e _, stamté aim spec§c xéemedy is, therefom! ma High Court shomd not devm‘tf‘ irom me gene“ View ami mterfere undei armcle 4%6 except when a very provided under the stah‘ue strong case is made out f‘air making a (iepartme. T116 eerson who msiys Iipon such remedy can ava11 01 the process as p10v1ded unciex the statute To t’qe same eifeet are the (iec1s1ons 1n Framer Automobiles i Ltd. V. Kamhkax Shantaram Wadke, Rajas‘thaa SRTC v. Kiishoa Kant, s Chamiiakalw ’I‘ukaram Nikam Muxiicigml Cmpn. of Ahmedabad mid in Scooters India vs. ‘Vijai EV. Eidrmi.” 8) in anofher decision [on the concept of maimamabiEty of Writ petition vis-é—vis avajiability of alternative Iemeoy, the Hou’bie Suyreme Court in the matter of Secy. ILP. High gehoai 8s tatermeaiiate Eciuc‘ation, Aiiahabaci 85 another v. HuK. Lav), observeti as under: “4. From the records it is boree out that the questioti asto whether the resyondeat has a 1ega} right to alter his date of. birth recorded m the ceitificate graxlted. by the Board was pendiog consideration before the appellate Court, The writ petition filed by the reseondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particularly in View of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was pendieg. Writ jurisdiction. is discretionaxy jurisdictioe and should not ordinarily ’be exercmed 1f there 1s an al emative remeuy 9} A common. thread running mto the dicta 1aid down by the rion’ble Sup eme Court m the aforementioned cases 1s that normaib 6 (209)?) 2 sec 2'16 i] 1 i ‘ ‘ \ \ the High Court should not mterfefe if ere is an adequate ehieacious alle‘natrve remédy Whae hleraxchy appeais is‘ provided by the i \ statute. par‘v must axhaust the statut ‘Iy'rcmady bafom resorting to . strong case 1s made out for wnt Jumsdlctmn‘ except whan a varv l 1 making a dsparture 1G) App1ymg thus wdl—ssttled dlcfadald (iown by the Hom’bk Sup‘eme Com on the 1ssue oi avaliabmty oi alternative runs-(iv to the facts 6f the case this petltmn 1s d1sm1ssed as not mamtama‘rie as no strong case has been made (mi fer exermse of extraohimary (iiseretioxlaqr jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners, However, liberty is resemed'to the petitioners to take reeourse i0 alternative stamiory forum, raising all the grounds avajia‘ole to the petitioners? if so ativised. No order asto costs Sdl— 'tlshK Agmhot“ Judge Raju . > a