Supreme Court: Where Efficacious Alternate Remedy Is Available, High Courts Shouldn’t Entertain Writ Petitions In Matters Falling Within Tribunals’ Domain

The Supreme Court held that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.

The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the Judgment of the Single Judge.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed, “… where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals. … Nevertheless, a writ petition under Article 226 may still be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of such an alternative remedy in exceptional circumstances, including the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution; instances of ultra vires or illegal exercise of power by a statutory authority; violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the vires of the parent legislation itself is under challenge.”

The Bench said that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) is equipped with all the powers to effectively and holistically deal with a matter presented before it and do complete justice to the same.

Senior Advocate Venugopala Gowda represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocates Devadatt Kamat, Geeta Luthra, and AAG Nishanth Patil represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A notification was issued in 2022 by the Department of Public Education, Government of Karnataka, inviting applications for a total number of 15,000 posts of Graduate Primary Teachers for Classes 6-8 for 35 Educational Districts. Pursuantly, the examinations were held. The Appellants and private Respondents applied and participated in the said examinations. Thereafter, results were declared and provisional select list was published. The said list did not include the names of certain married individuals/candidates who had applied in the OBC (Other Backward Class) category, as they had not produced the caste cum income certificate of their husbands but rather submitted the one issued in the name of their fathers. As a result of non-consideration of the certificate produced by them, the said individuals were found to be ineligible for reservation provided for the OBC category and hence, their names got reflected in the general merit list.

Being aggrieved, the private Respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking to quash the provisional select list and seeking consideration of the names in the list. The High Court granted liberty to approached the Administrative Tribunal. Hence, some persons approached the KSAT. Despite the Order passed by the Kalaburagi Bench, the Single Judge entertained the Writ Petitions and allowed the same. The provisional select list was also quashed and subsequently, the Government issued a fresh list. The Respondents didn’t find their names and again approached the High Court, which granted liberty to approach KSAT. The Appellants filed their objections before the Government which were rejected and a final list was published. Not finding their names in the same, the Appellants filed Writ Appeals and the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s Order. However, it directed the State to proceed with the appointment of teachers from the selected candidates as per the final select list. This was under challenge before the Apex Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… the present case does not fall under the category of an exceptional circumstance as the issue is restricted merely to 481 candidates whose inclusion in the select list is allegedly illegal.”

The Court said that the facts of the case do not fall within any of the exceptions so as to warrant the maintainability of the Writ Petitions before the High Court.

“The Act of 1985 empowers the Tribunals to deal exclusively with service matters with the intention to reduce the burden on Courts, who were otherwise dealing with service matters along with the other cases. The idea behind establishing the Tribunals was to provide speedy reliefs to the aggrieved persons in respect of their grievances in relation to service matters”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the Judgment passed by the Single Judge and had not committed any illegality in partly allowing the Appeals by the first set of Appellants and relegating the matter to the KSAT for adjudication.

“The Division Bench of the High Court had rightly held that their writ petitions before the High Court are not maintainable. … So far as the contention of the appellants of the first set of appeals (A), that the Division Bench has erred in not reviving the provisional select list dated 18.11.2022, we are of the view that the same has no merit since, the appellants of the first set of the appeals (A) were figured in only the provisional select list issued on 18.11.2022 and, therefore, no right has been accrued to them”, it further observed.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that any direction issued by the High Court to act on, the provisional select list would result in confusion and a complex situation and, therefore, there is no error in the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, wherein it has not revived the provisional select list.

“The interim directions passed by this Court on 03.01.2024, 22.01.2024 and 04.10.2024 are made absolute with a clarification that the 500 posts which were kept reserved pursuant to the Order dated 04.10.2024 shall be filled as per the final judgment passed by the KSAT”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and directed the KSAT to decide the application of the Appellants expeditiously, preferably within 6 months.

Cause Title- Leelavathi N. and Ors. Etc. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1242)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Venugopala Gowda, AORs Manish Tiwari, Anirudh Sanganeria, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Harisha S.R., Manish Kumar, Mandeep Kalra, Advocates KV Dhananjay, Ananya Krishna, Dheeraj SJ, Chinmay Deshpande, Vishwaditya Sharma, Rohan Dewan, Harsha Tripathi, Kanishka Singh, Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, K. Shiva, Ashwin V. Kotemath, Yogesh V. Kotemath, K.V. Dhanajay, Ananya Krishna, Dheeraj SJ, and Radhika Narula.

Respondents: Senior Advocates Devadatt Kamat, Geeta Luthra, AAG Nishanth Patil, AORs Sanchit Garga, D. L. Chidananda, Pai Amit, Avneesh Arputham, Saurabh Agrawal, Komal Mundhra, Shagufa Salim, Advocates Kunal Rana, Arijit Dey, Shashwat Jaiswal, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Diksha Arora, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Abhiyudaya Vats, Maria Francis, Anuj Singh, and Janvi Desai.

Click here to read/download the Judgment