Lokesh Katara And Anr vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Gujarat
- SCC(2017) 2 SCC 427
- Neutral2016 INSC 1126
- SCR[2016] 9 SCR 983
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an aggrieved party has an adequate remedy available by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to entertain the same grievance, as the remedy under Article 226 is the appropriate forum for the redressal of such disputes.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
These proceedings have been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution by two petitioners who are stated to be working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants since 2009 on a contractual basis. The petitioners state that Systems Officers and Systems Assistants were engaged in the High Court and the district courts in the State of Gujarat in consonance with the National Policy and Action Plan prepared by the E- Committee. In 2013, the Government of Gujarat sanctioned posts of Systems Officers and Systems Assistants in the regular cadre. An amendment was made to the recruitment rules in 2015 for filling up these posts by direct recruitment. The existing Systems Officers and Systems Assistants working in various district courts submitted a representation seeking their absorption. An online skill test was conducted. Another representation was submitted on 16 March 2016. However, the representation for absorption was rejected on 26 May 2016. On 9 September 2016 an advertisement was published by the Registrar (Recruitment and Finance) inviting applications for thirty posts of Systems Officers and thirty posts of Systems Assistants. The Writ Petition has been instituted seeking to challenge the advertisement issued by the High Court and for a mandamus for incorporating a provision in the recruitment rules for the absorption of the petitioners and similarly placed persons.
2 We are not inclined to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners have a remedy available of moving the High Court on the judicial side under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings as they may be advised, we decline to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
3 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
.........................................CJI [T S THAKUR]
…..........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
…..........................................J [L NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi December 14,2016
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free