JUDGMENT & ORDER : MARLI VANKUN, J. Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved for not having been given retrospective promotion w.e.f. 2010 to the petitioners when the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to Indian Forest Service of AGMUT Cadre vide notification dated 27.06.2019 and placed in selection list of the year 2017, and the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to Indian Forest Service of AGMUT Cadre vide notification dated 06.10.2020 and placed in the selection list of 2018. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they were appointed to the Mizoram Forest Service during the year between 1984 and 1986, and thereafter, they were promoted to senior grade during the year between 2009 and 2015 rd respectively. Under the 3 proviso to Rule/Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, it was provided that a member of the State Forest Service who has completed 8 (eight) years continuous service will be eligible for consideration for induction to the Indian Forest Service by way of promotion by the Selection Committee. However, due to 4 (four) promotion quota posts of Indian Forest Service belonging to Mizoram Segment being diverted to Arunachal Pradesh and Goa in the past, there was stagnation amongst the Mizoram Forest Service. The State Forest Service Association had been taking steps for restoration of the said diverted post and also for temporarily diversion of additional post from UT quota to solve the stagnation which has occurred within the Mizoram Forest Service. Finally, 4+2=6 posts was allotted to Mizoram segment, as a result of which the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to Indian Forest Service vide notification dated 27.06.2019 and they were placed in the select list of 2017. The petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to IFS (Indian Forest Service) vide notification dated 06.01.2020 and were placed in select list of 2018. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to Indian Forest Service vide notification dated 27.06.2019 and they were placed in the select list of 2017. The petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to IFS (Indian Forest Service) vide notification dated 06.01.2020 and were placed in select list of 2018. The petitioners were dissatisfied with the allotment of select list 2017 & 2018 respectively, since there was vacant post from the year 2010 and unless they are given retrospective promotion they would be serving under junior Officers from other State Forest Service. Aggrieved, they had approached the respondent authority on several occasions, the most recent representation was on 17.05.2021. However, on receiving no response, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Mizoram Forest Service Rules 1999 was amended by the Mizoram Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 2014 and Gazetted on 20.10.2014. As per the Rules, the cadre strength in the senior grade of the service was enhanced from 10 to 11 posts in the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest Officer and Principal, Forest Training School. The petitioners got promoted to senior grade during the years 2009 to 2015 respectively and have all therefore completed 8 (eight) years of continuous service in the State Forest Service being eligible for consideration by the Selection Committee to be inducted in the Indian Forest Service by way of promotion as directed under the provisions of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966. The Selection Committee constituted for each of the joint cadre of service are mandated to sit every year for appropriate of select list of members of the State Forest Service from suitable persons for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners having completed their required criteria of 8 (eight) years of continuous service under the Mizoram Forest Service were entitled for consideration of the case for promotion by way of induction to the Indian Forest Service. However, due to severe stagnation, they were not immediately considered. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners having completed their required criteria of 8 (eight) years of continuous service under the Mizoram Forest Service were entitled for consideration of the case for promotion by way of induction to the Indian Forest Service. However, due to severe stagnation, they were not immediately considered. The learned counsel submitted that the Arunachal Pradesh – Goa – Mizoram – UT known as AGMUT cadre is constituted in terms of Rule 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulation, 1966.The stagnation being due to the joint cadre authority diverting 4 (four) promotional quota post for Mizoram in the post to accommodate officers for Arunachal Pradesh and one for Goa, reducing the promotion quota vacancies in Mizoram segment which is unjust and arbitrary and a violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 19.05.2010 the Joint Cadre Authority (JCA) of the joint AGMUT cadre of Indian Forest Service conveyed the meeting (annexed as annexure 6), wherein, it was resolved that out of 55 total promotional quota posts of AGMUT cadre, 10 posts were allotted to the Mizoram segment of joint cadre. It was also mentioned in the meeting that 4 (four) promotional quota posts of Mizoram were diverted to the segment of Arunachal Pradesh and Goa in 1988. The learned counsel also submits that the UT of Delhi, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry and Daman & Diu do not have any State Forest Service, however, promotional quota vacancies were allotted to the segment as follows:- “Delhi - 3 posts Lakshadweep - 1 post Chandigarh - 2 posts Pondicherry - 1 post Daman & Diu - 1 post” 7. The learned counsel thus submitted that since the above UTs, do not have their State Forest Service, there is no possibility of filling up the said promotional quota vacancies without having any State Forest Service Officer completing 8 (eight) years of service, the Mizoram Forest Service Association had made a prayer before the respondent No. 1 since 2011 for diversion of these posts to Mizoram segment, which could have solve the stagnation of promotion of Officers due to lack of promotion quota post. The Mizoram Forest Service Association had then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 201/2015 and Hon’ble Tribunal disposed of the said OA No. 201/2015 by its Order dated 18.03.2016 by directing that the respondent No. 1, in order to avoid cascading litigation, be given the opportunity to settle the issue at the cadre reviewing authority level and till the time cadre review is completed, the Officers of the State Forest Service from any other participating State, who are junior to the State Forest Service of Mizoram and are in queue for promotion will not be promoted to Indian Forest Service. That the cadre review process will dispassionately go into the claims and go into claims of various participating State Forest Service cadre and ensure that no participating State cadre feels neglected because of historical acts of omission and commissions on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after a representation made by the Mizoram Forest Service Association, the Government of India issued Order dated 30.10.2017 by which only 4+2 additional promotional quota posts were temporarily allocated to Mizoram segment and Andaman & Nicobar Islands respectively. The Mizoram segment got 4 (four) posts upon diversion while 2 (two) promotional quota posts was lying idle i.e., 1 (one) at Delhi and 1 (one) at Pondicherry where there is no State cadre to be filled up. Meanwhile, in the absence of sufficient number of posts and considering the posts lying unutilized in UTs since 2010 to 2017, the Mizoram Forest Service Association submitted a representation dated 22.06.2018 for retrospective fixation of vacancy year/select list for allocated posts so that the senior State Forest Service Officers of Mizoram can be accommodated and they can be brought at par with other inducted officers in the joint AGMUT cadre. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change then issued an Order dated 04.07.2018 by which the 2 (two) remaining promotional quota posts lying idle in the UT cadre were temporarily diverted to Mizoram segment of AGMUT cadre. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Selection Committee meeting on 14.08.2018 considered the induction of the State Forest Service Officers to Indian Forest Service against the 4 (four) temporarily diverted posts wherein the temporarily diverted posts were taken to be vacancies of 2017. Consequently, the petitioner Nos. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Selection Committee meeting on 14.08.2018 considered the induction of the State Forest Service Officers to Indian Forest Service against the 4 (four) temporarily diverted posts wherein the temporarily diverted posts were taken to be vacancies of 2017. Consequently, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to the Indian Forest Service vide notification dated 27.06.2019 in the select list for the year 2017 and thereafter, the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to the Indian Forest Service vide notification dated 06.01.2020 in the select list of 2018. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were promoted w.e.f. 2017 and 2018 respectively while there are vacant post since the year 2010 and therefore, the petitioners have already acquired the right to be considered for induction to Indian Forest Service in the vacant post since the year 2010, as they have already completed 8 (eight) years of continuous service in terms of the Regulations of 1966. The petitioners have submitted their joint representation dated 17.05.2021 for giving them retrospective promotion against the 6 (six) posts which had become vacant in the year 2010 to enable the petitioners to be equated with the other State Forest Service Officers, if not the Mizoram segment Officers would be serving under the juniors if such an Officer is transferred to the Mizoram segment from other segment of AGMUT cadre. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Officers of Andaman & Nicobar Island of 1996 State Forest Service have also been considered against the select list of 2010 by the review committee meeting and the present petitioners are much senior to the above stated officers of Andaman & Nicobar Island. The petitioners had also requested the concerned authorities for review and consideration be taken better retrospective effect to the temporarily allocated 6 (six) posts of Mizoram segment as of the year 2010 in order to enable them to be at par with the other inducted Officers in the joint AGMUT cadre. The petitioners had also requested the concerned authorities for review and consideration be taken better retrospective effect to the temporarily allocated 6 (six) posts of Mizoram segment as of the year 2010 in order to enable them to be at par with the other inducted Officers in the joint AGMUT cadre. The respondent authority vide notification dated 13.07.2021 had forwarded the said representation to Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change, however no imposed have been taken by the Ministry till date and the petitioners are on the verge of retirement, some of them have already retired, however, the retired Officers are also entitled to enjoy the benefits of retrospective promotion. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that other similarly situated Officer Mr. Yesu Ratnam of the State Forest Service Officer of Andaman & Nicobar Island had approached the CAT, Calcutta Bench and in pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble CAT vide Order dated 22.12.2014 in O.A No.93/AN/2012, the Review Selection Committee in a meeting held on 24.08.2018 had placed the aggrieved Officers in the select list of 2010 in pursuance to Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 r/w Regulation 9(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966 (Annexure IV). The learned counsel also submitted that another similarly placed Officer of the State Forest Service of Tamil Nadu, Mr. K. Sankaranlingam in pursuant to the Order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madras in WP(C) No. 3841/2016 had convened a review promotion committee to review the select list of the year 2000 and considered the case of the petitioner therein (Annexure 22). Likewise, the Officer of the State Forest Service of Uttar Pradesh was promoted to Indian Forest Service and placed in the select list of 2009 vide Order dated 13.07.2021 in pursuant to the Order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WP(C) No. 1731 (SB)/2014 (Annexure 23 ). The learned counsel submitted that the present petitioners are also claiming retrospective effect of their year of select list which was considered by the review committee in pursuant with the orders of the High Court of their respective state. 11. The learned counsel submitted that the present petitioners are also claiming retrospective effect of their year of select list which was considered by the review committee in pursuant with the orders of the High Court of their respective state. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution of Indian is a part of the basic structure of the constitution and the aggrieved party can move the High Court to review a legislative action. In support of her submissions the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 (paras 76,78,88) , T.K. Rangarajan v. Govt. of T.N., (2003) 6 SCC 581 (paras 5,6,10) . The learned counsel also submitted that the High court had dealt with service matters without routing through the Tribunal by citing M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88 (para 10,12) , Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 126 (para 4&5), T.K. Rangarajan Vs. Government of T.N. & Ors. , reported in (2003) 6 SCC 581 . The order of The Delhi High Court in Sh. Akul Bhargava & Ors. Vs. Union Public Service Commission in WP(C) No. 3509/2020 and CM Appeal No. 12452/2020 dated 9th October, 2020 which had referred to the order of a coordinate bench of this court in Principal Seat at Gauhati in WP(C) No. 1149/2018 dated 26.04.2018, wherein the matter was taken up by the Single Bench of this Court instead of referring the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the representations of the petitioners dated 07.05.2021 was forwarded to the Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change vide letter dated 13.07.2021. However, the respondent authority paid no heed to their representation. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the representations of the petitioners dated 07.05.2021 was forwarded to the Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change vide letter dated 13.07.2021. However, the respondent authority paid no heed to their representation. The learned counsel further submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic Covid-19, the petitioners could not approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench and since there was urgency in the matter because some of the petitioners were on the verge of retirement on superannuation, the petitioners had approached this Court to exercise its extra original jurisdiction by directing the respondents to convene a Review Selection Committee to give retrospective select year/promotion to the petitioners w.e.f. 2010. That unless they are given retrospective promotion they would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Meanwhile though petitioner No. 2 had retired on superannuation pension on 31.10.2021, however, he is still entitled to enjoy the benefits of retrospective promotion although already retired. 13. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the State Government supports the claim of the petitioners and stated that as per Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change, Government of India’s Order dated 20.12.2010, the promotional quota post had been lying vacant against some UTs since 2010. In compliance of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Order dated 18.03.2016 in OA No. 201/2015, the Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change, Government of India had temporarily allocated 4 (four) posts to Mizoram segment in 2012 vide Order dated 30.10.2017 and 2 (two) posts in 2018 vide Order dated 04.07.2018. She submitted that had these 6 (six) posts had been temporarily allocated retrospectively w.e.f. 2010 (i.e. the year of vacancy) then inducted Officers would have been brought up to some extent at par with the other inducted State Forest Service Officers in joint AGMUT cadre. She also submitted that some of the State Forest Service Officers in Mizoram who completed more than 30 years of continuous service were awaiting their promotion into Indian Forest Service owing to serious stagnation due to temporarily diversion of some promotional quota post of Mizoram segment to Arunachal Pradesh and Goa in the past. That more promotional quota post allocated to UTs were lying vacant since 2010 as there were no feeder service officers for promotion. That more promotional quota post allocated to UTs were lying vacant since 2010 as there were no feeder service officers for promotion. That in other segments of joint AGMUT cadre some State Forest Service Officer much junior to State Forest Service Officers of Mizoram segment are already inducted into Indian Forest Service and serving at senior positions. She submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners for review and retrospective fixation of select list (vacancy year) as 2010 vide letter dated 17.05.2021 in respect of 6 (six) promotional quota post temporarily allocated to Mizoram segment against the select list of 2017 and 2018 are found to be valid and genuine. 14. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the claim of the petitioners as a whole is the subject matter of joint cadre authority and the Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change (MOEF&CC), Government of India. That the State Government/respondent Nos. 4 to 6, merely constitutes a segment of the joint AGMUT cadre and has very little to do with the whole process except forward the representations received from the Indian Forest Service Officers serving under the State Government to the Ministry of EF&CC, Government of India and to furnish any required information/agenda papers for promotion of the Indian Forest Service. 15. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC on the other hand submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected by submitting that the petitioners should have approach the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding their grievance instead of approaching this Court directly. That the Central Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum to decide the case of the petitioners. The learned CGC has also relied upon the decision of the Apex court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (supra) (para 92, 93 & 99). 16. The learned counsel submitted that in pursuant to the Order dated 01.03.2016 passed in Original Application No. 201/2015 filed by the Mizoram Forest Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. before CAT Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, the JCA held meeting on 07.09.2017 wherein it was decided to temporarily divert 4 (four) promotional quota post to Mizoram segment to accommodate promotion of the petitioners. Union of India & Ors. before CAT Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, the JCA held meeting on 07.09.2017 wherein it was decided to temporarily divert 4 (four) promotional quota post to Mizoram segment to accommodate promotion of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Ministry vide Order dated 30.10.2017 temporarily diverted 04 (four) promotion quota post to Mizoram segment and 2 (two) promotion quota post to Andaman & Nicobar Island segments from other segments of AGMUT cadre where the feeders cadre was not available as on date. The Ministry then vide Order dated 04.07.2018 temporarily diverted 2 (two) promotional quota post to Mizoram segment and 1 (one) promotion quota to Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, in total 6 (six) promotional quota post were temporarily diverted to Mizoram segment of AGMUT cadre from other segment of AGMUT cadre beyond sanctioned strength of promotion quota post of Mizoram segment to accommodate the petitioners. The actual strength of promotion quota post of Mizoram segment is 10. 17. The learned CGC further submitted that the said representation of the petitioners dated 17.05.2021 in retrospective induction of Indian Forest Service w.e.f. 2010 was examined and regretted. She further submitted that the State Government vide the letter dated 29.06.2018 had also forwarded the representations of the Mizoram Forest Association for retrospective fixation of select list for induction of stagnation State Forest Service Officers of Mizoram. The Ministry vide letter dated 11.10.2018 had informed the Government of Mizoram that 06 (six) promotional quota post were allotted to Mizoram segment beyond sanctioned strength of promotional quota post. The actual strength of promotional quota post of Mizoram segment being 10 numbers. The Ministry had thus informed the State Government that retrospective fixation of select list for induction of stagnating State Forest Service Officer of Mizoram cannot be granted. 18. The learned CGC further submitted that the seniority of State Forest Service Officer of each segment under AGMUT cadre are separate and seniority of the Indian Forest Service Officer of AGMIT cadre is common. If these vacancies are given retrospective effect for filling up the post of Mizoram State Forest Service Officer, it could adversely affect the seniority of other segments and Indian Forest Officer of AGMUT cadre. Further, promotion quota post were temporarily diverted to Arunachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Island and in the list of Mizoram their seniority are to be fixed which may also lead to litigation. Further, promotion quota post were temporarily diverted to Arunachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Island and in the list of Mizoram their seniority are to be fixed which may also lead to litigation. She submitted that in compliance of the CAT order passed in OA No. 201/2015, the JCA recommended 06 (six) promotional quota post diverted temporarily to Mizoram segment beyond their sanction strength i.e., 10 numbers. The learned counsel further submitted that the promotion quota post of Mizoram segment is 10 as per the DOP&T notification dated 24.03.2019. The promotional quota posts have also been diverted to Arunachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Island segment. These posts have been diverted beyond their sanctioned strength of promotion quota post. If these vacancies were recognised retrospectively by filling up the post of Mizoram State Forest Service Officer it would adversely affect the seniority of other segments and Indian Forest Service Officer of AGMUT cadre inviting further litigation. Likewise, further promotion quota post temporarily diverted to Arunachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Island done in list with those of Mizoram would also invite litigation if fixation of their seniority is done as prayed for. 19. The learned CGC further submitted that appointment into State Forest Service does not automatically give rise to induction to Indian Forest Service during service period. The said stagnation of State Forest Service occurred temporarily because of excessive recruitment of State Forest Service Officer by the State Government compared to actual promotion quota for induction of Indian Forest Service in any cadre or segment of AGMUT cadre. 20. The learned CGC further submitted that the allocation of 4 (four) promotion quota post of Mizoram segment to the Officers of other segments was purely on notional basis till the retirement of the incumbents of the post which was keeping in view of the direction of the CAT, Delhi dated 24.09.2009 passed in amended AO No. 1866/2007 in AK Ambasht & amp Ors. Vs. Union of India & amp Ors. The learned CGC by referring to the case of Shri. Yesu Ratnam wherein he had filed the OA for proper assessment and has downgraded entries in the ACRs were not communicated to him. Thereafter, his ACR were upgraded and the CAT, Calcutta Bench vide Order dated 20.12.2014 had got for the review of this case. The learned CGC by referring to the case of Shri. Yesu Ratnam wherein he had filed the OA for proper assessment and has downgraded entries in the ACRs were not communicated to him. Thereafter, his ACR were upgraded and the CAT, Calcutta Bench vide Order dated 20.12.2014 had got for the review of this case. Accordingly, Review Selection Committee meeting was held on 24.08.2018 and selected him against the select list of 2010. The learned CGC further submitted that the Ministry is the controlling authority with the recommendation of the JCA which included the Chief Secretary, Mizoram and the committee has rightly distributed induction quota of segments having no State Forest Service amongst the segments having State Forest Service. The learned CGC thus submits that the petition of the petitioners may be dismissed with cost. 21. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that the undisputed facts are that the petitioners have completed the required criteria of 8 (eight) years of continuous service under the Mizoram Forest Service to be entitled for consideration for promotion by way of induction to the Indian Forest rd Serviceunder the 3 proviso to Rule/Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. However, they were not immediately considereddue to stagnation in the service being under the AGMUT Cadre wherein, out if the 10 posts allocated to the Mizoram Segment of the joint cadre, the joint cadre authority had diverted 4 promotional quota post of Mizoram in the past to accommodate 3 officers for Arunachal Pradesh and 1 for Goa, which resulted in the stagnation in the Mizoram Forest Service.The Mizoram Forest Service Association had then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application/OA No. 04201/2015 praying for a direction to the Respondents to immediately determine the vacancies in the Promotional Quota for Mizoram in the AGMUT Joint Cadre of Indian Forest Service by taking into account the original quota strength of 10 (ten) posts and by adding thereto the vacant postsfrom the allotted quota of Non-State Forests Service segments, for the purpose of filling up of the vacancies w.e.f. the year 2010 by giving cumulative effect of vacancies to which Mizoram was deprived of due to diversion of 4 (four) quota posts. Accordingly,the learned tribunal vide it’s order dated 18.03.2018 haddirected the respondent No. 1 opportunity to settle the issue at the cadre review authority level as promised by the respondent No. 1. and till the time cadre review is completed, officers of State Forest Service from other participating States who are junior to the State Forest Service Officers of Mizoram are in queue for promotion, will not be promoted to Indian Forest Service. In compliance of the order of the learned tribunal, the Ministry vide Order dated 30.10.2017 temporarily diverted 04 (four) promotion quota post to Mizoram segment and 2 (two) promotion quota post to Andaman & Nicobar Island segments from other segments of AGMUT cadre where the feeders cadre was not available as on date. The Ministry also, vide Order dated 04.07.2018 temporarily diverted 2 (two) promotional quota post to Mizoram segment and 1 (one) promotion quota to Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, in total 6 (six) promotional quota post temporarily diverted to Mizoram segment of AGMUT cadre from other segment of AGMUT cadre, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were promoted to Indian Forest Service vide the impugned notification dated 27.06.2019 and they were placed in the select list of 2017. The petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 were also promoted to IFS (Indian Forest Service) vide impugned notification dated06.01.2020 and were placed in select list of 2018. 22. This court finds it appropriate first to look into the point on whether the instant writ petition filed under article 266 of the Constitution of India, ought to be entertained when the matter can be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal/CAT, Guwahati Branch. If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for by giving retrospective promotion to the petitioners w.e.f. 2010 with all consequential benefits viz.; increment, arrear of pay, seniority, etc.” 23. This Court finds that the petitioners approached this court to exercise its extra - ordinary jurisdiction under Article 266 of the Constitution due to the outbreak of pandemic Covid-19 due to which the petitioners could not approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench because there was urgency in the matter since some of the petitioners were on the verge of retirement on superannuation and have cited instances wherein the Writ Courts had entertained applications under article 266 of the constitution inspite of the availability of an alternative remedy i.e Central Administrative Tribunal. 24. 24. On a perusal of the cases relied upon by the petitioner, it is seen that in M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jahan Khan, (supra) it was observed that there is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The facts of the case was with regards to a major penalty imposed upon the petitioners and wherein the Apex court observed that the imposition of penalty vide composite order dated 19-12-1989, directing recovery of loss of Rs 16,903.41 and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, is a major penalty, clearly envisaging a regular enquiry before punishing the respondent. Since admittedly this procedure was not followed, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that imposition of the impugned penalty without holding enquiry was illegal and without jurisdiction by exercising it’s power of judicial review under article 226 of the constitution. Facts and circumstances of the case being different, this court finds it not applicable in the instant case. 25. In T.K. Rangarajan Vs. Government of T.N. & Ors., (supra) the fact of the case was that the state government had dismissed two lakh employees who had gone on strike and the Apex court held that due to the very exceptional nature of the case the High Court was empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution to meet the unprecedented extraordinary situation without the exhausting the alternative remedy of approaching the Administrative Tribunal. The case is found not applicable in the instant case. 26. The cited case in Satwati Deswal Vs. The case is found not applicable in the instant case. 26. The cited case in Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (supra) is with regards to the termination of service of the Government employee where no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor was the order of termination passed by initiating any departmental proceeding after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. This order of termination was challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy to file an appeal under the rules before the appellate authority against the order of termination. However, the Apex court held that the High Court had fallen in grave error in rejecting the writ petition wherein such an order of termination was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the appellant and without initiating any disciplinary proceedings by the authorities and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The Apex court observed that it is well settled that a writ petition can be held to be maintainable even if an alternative remedy is available to an aggrieved party where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right; or if there had been a violation of a principle of natural justice; or where vires of the Act were in question. Facts and issues being different is not applicable in the instant case. 27. The Delhi High Court in Sh. Akul Bhargava &Ors. Vs. Union Public Service Commission (supra) while considering the maintainability of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution wherein the allegation in the writ petition was that there is a breach of principles of natural justice, the Delhi High Court had proceeded to take up the case by fixing another date for arguments on merits by observing that “it is the settled position that the alternate remedy has to also be an efficacious remedy. During the pandemic, almost all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning at a very bare minimum. Relegating the Petitioners to approach CAT would lead to further delays in their candidature being considered for selection to the IAS. Though the CAT may be functioning during the pandemic, there is no doubt that the same is through video conferencing, at a bare minimum level. Relegating the Petitioners to approach CAT would lead to further delays in their candidature being considered for selection to the IAS. Though the CAT may be functioning during the pandemic, there is no doubt that the same is through video conferencing, at a bare minimum level. Under such circumstances, to reject the prayer of the Petitioners would cause substantial injustice as the Petitioners may be left completely into an uncertain arena, insofar as the selection is concerned. The cancellation of the meeting of the Selection Committee deserves to be examined in writ jurisdiction.” 28. This court finds thus finds that in the above cited cases, the writ court had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review where it was alleged that there is failure of principles of natural justice in not giving the parties an opportunity of being heard or where the due process of law as prescribed is not followed or under extraordinary circumstances which could affect a large number of persons or due to the Covid - 19 pandemic where the tribunal was functioning at its bare minimal level. However, this court finds that from the nature of relief prayed for by the petitioners and also wherein the Respondent/Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had taken the stand that retrospective promotion cannot be given since the promotional quota post allotted to Mizoram segment was beyond its sanctioned strength and that granting retrospective promotion could adversely affect the seniority of other segments of Indian Forest Officer of AGMUT cadre, this court finds that the given facts cannot be circumstances wherein the writ court is required to exercise its extraordinary power in spite of there being an alternative remedy available. This court also finds that the plea taken by the petitioner that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch was no approached due to Covid-19 Pandemic, is no longer relevant, especially, when there appear to be no exigency in the matter considering the fact that the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner who have retired on superannuation pension would still be entitled to enjoy the benefits of retrospective promotion although already retired. 29. 29. It is also seen that the petitioner has referred to instances where certain State Forest Service officers of other states were given retrospective promotion by reviewing their select lists in pursuance to the Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 r/w Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966 by the concerned authority in pursuance of the orders of the Writ court and the Central Administrative tribunal, however, the full facts and circumstances of these cases is not available on record and it is also not the case of the petitioner that, being similarly situated, the right of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated. 30. This Court finds is that the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India &Ors., (supra) has held that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded. However, the Apex Court observed that: “93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. ……………….. 99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated .” 31. In view of the above findings and considering the judgments cited above, this Court is of the considered view that when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, this Court is constrained to hold that it would be more appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal which is like a court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. As per section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the tribunal has all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State; (b) all service matters concerning a person not being a person referred to in clause (c) of this sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the State Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in clause (b), being a person whose service have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation [or society] or other body as is controlled or owned by the State 32. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason this court does not find it appropriate to delve into, or pass any order on the merits of the case. 33. The instant Writ petition WP(C) No. 122 of 2021 is thus dismissed and disposed of with a permission to the parties approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. No costs.