The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a recruitment advertisement issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli, holding that the appropriate forum for adjudicating such disputes is the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court observed that disputes relating to recruitment and service matters of institutions that fall within the scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act must be addressed before the tribunal rather than directly before the High Court. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioners.
The matter was decided by Justice Shree Prakash Singh. The petition had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an advertisement issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli for recruitment to certain staff posts. The advertisement invited applications for two posts of Assistant Store Officer and three posts of Private Secretary. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the recruitment advertisement and relief against the recruitment process initiated by the institution.
During the proceedings, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended that the petition should not be entertained by the High Court because disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions of employees of institutions such as AIIMS fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was argued that the statutory framework governing service matters clearly provides that such disputes should be adjudicated by the tribunal established for that purpose.
The Court examined the legal provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and referred to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court noted that Section 14 of the Act provides that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction, authority and powers in relation to service matters concerning persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. This provision vests the tribunal with authority to adjudicate disputes that would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of courts in relation to service matters.
The Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. In that decision, the Supreme Court clarified the role and authority of tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution. The ruling recognized that such tribunals have the power to examine the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules while adjudicating disputes that fall within their jurisdiction. The decision also affirmed that tribunals are competent to consider the vires of statutory legislation in matters properly brought before them.
While considering the facts of the present case, the Court examined the sequence of events connected with the dispute. The recruitment advertisement issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli had been published on November 11, 2025. The writ petition challenging the advertisement was filed before the High Court on January 8, 2026. Subsequently, on January 13, 2026, the Central Government issued a notification bringing the institution within the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The Court then examined the implications of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. This provision deals with cases that are pending before courts or authorities when the jurisdiction of the tribunal becomes applicable. The provision states that such cases relating to service matters are required to be transferred to the appropriate tribunal once the institution concerned falls within the scope of the Act.
In the course of its analysis, the Court considered the meaning of the phrase “pending before a court or authority” used in the statutory provision. The Court observed that the phrase refers to the period between the filing of a case and its final disposal. According to the Court, once a petition has been filed and remains undecided, it must be regarded as pending before the forum where it has been filed.
Applying this interpretation to the present case, the Court noted that although the recruitment advertisement had been issued before the filing of the writ petition and the petition itself had been filed before the notification bringing the institution under the Administrative Tribunals Act, the notification was issued while the petition was still pending before the High Court. As a result, the statutory framework governing service matters became applicable during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Court observed that once the institution had been notified under the relevant statutory scheme, disputes relating to recruitment and service matters concerning that institution would fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, even though the notification was issued after the filing of the writ petition, the appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute would be the tribunal rather than the High Court.
The Court further held that the fact that the notification was issued during the pendency of the writ petition did not render the petition maintainable before the High Court. Instead, the dispute should be pursued before the tribunal that had been granted jurisdiction under the statutory scheme. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Tribunals Act provides an effective remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal for individuals seeking to challenge recruitment processes and other service-related matters concerning institutions under its jurisdiction.
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the writ petition filed before the High Court was not maintainable. The Court held that the petitioners should avail themselves of the remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate such disputes, including examining questions relating to the legality or validity of the recruitment process if necessary.
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the recruitment advertisement issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli. The Court reiterated that the proper forum for raising such grievances was the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is empowered to deal with service matters relating to institutions that fall within its jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.