Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 262 (RAJ)

Harnath Yogi S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Yogi v. Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai

2025-02-10

AVNEESH JHINGAN, PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
Order : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner aggrieved of non- selection to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot advertised by the Centralised Employment Notice No.01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘notice’) filed Original Application (O.A.) in the year 2023. The Tribunal relying upon clause 13.08 held that the Rajasthan Bench of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, but thereafter proceeded to deal with the merits of the case. Clause 13.08 of the notice is reproduced below:- “13.08 Any legal issues arising out of this Centralised Employment Notice shall fall within the legal jurisdiction of respective Central Administrative Tribunals under which the RRB concerned is located.” 3. On 29.08.2024 while issuing notice of motion, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with the merits of the case inspite of holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction. Notice of motion for 10.10.2024.” 4. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner deserves merit. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 112 STC 543 (SC) held that while dismissing the petition relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy, the Court should not deal with the merits of the case. Relevant para is quoted below:- “It is no doubt true that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a person, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and where such a remedy is available, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of assessment and in view of such a remedy being available to the appellant, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy available under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. However, we do not subscribe to the view of the High Court when it made a number of observations touching upon the merits of the case while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. If the writ petition under Article 226 is to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the High Court is not required to express any opinion on merits of the case which is to be pursued before an alternative forum. It is true that in the present case the appellant's counsel in his effort to get over the objection of existence of an alternative remedy, addressed the Court on merits of the case and thereby invited the observations on merits of the case by the High Court But in such a situation if the High Court is to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, it would be a sound exercise of jurisdiction to refrain itself from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case which ultimately is to be taken up by a person before an alternative forum.” 6. Once the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A., it became coram non judice and there was no occasion to deal with the merits of the case. It is well settled that order passed by the Court having no jurisdiction is nullity. In the present case, the Tribunal itself held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. in view of clause 13.08, the order passed thereafter on the merits and limitation is void. The impugned order to the extent deciding issue of limitation and merits of the case is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 7. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.