Isabella Mariam

The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh recently held that a writ petition against a recruitment advertisement issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli, was not maintainable before the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India to conclude that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution hold the competence to examine the constitutional validity of statutory provisions, rules, and legislative vires, making the Central Administrative Tribunal the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The writ petitions were filed challenging recruitment advertisements issued by AIIMS Raebareli for the posts of Assistant Store Officer and Private Secretary. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 11.11.2025 for recruitment to two posts of Assistant Store Officer and three posts of Private Secretary. They also sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to fill the posts through promotion in accordance with the mechanism prescribed in the office memorandum dated 20.11.2024 issued by AIIMS New Delhi. In one of the petitions, the advertisement dated 11.07.2025 was additionally challenged.

Also Read: Supreme Court To Examine Non-Production Of Undertrials Before Courts Across India; Directs Impleadment Of All HCs, DGPs & Prison Heads

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was argued that the impugned advertisements initiated a recruitment process for posts under a central institution and that matters relating to recruitment fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. According to the respondents, an efficacious alternative remedy was available before the Tribunal at Lucknow.

The petitioners contended that the advertisements violated the Recruitment Rules for Non-Faculty Posts for New AIIMS, 2015. They argued that the quota for promotion had been ignored in respect of the posts advertised and that the authority had undertaken direct recruitment contrary to the prescribed rules. The petitioners further submitted that the writ petitions were filed prior to the notification bringing the institution within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

The Court examined the preliminary objection regarding maintainability in light of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It observed that “section 14 of the Act 1985, envisaged the jurisdiction and power of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which says that 'the administrative tribunals shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediately before the day, by all courts.'”

While considering the subject matter of the dispute, the Court stated that “the issue herein, is with respect to the advertisement for the recruitment of two posts, namely, the Assistant Store Officer as well as Private Secretary, which essentially is the subject matter of clause 14(i)(a) of the 'Act 1985'.”

The Court then analyzed the timeline of events and the statutory framework governing jurisdiction. It recorded that “the advertisement for recruitment of the posts in question, was published on 11.11.2025 and Institution has subsequently been notified on 13.01.2026 by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.” It further noted that “the writ petition was also preferred on 08.01.2026 that too was prior to the notification dated 13.01.2026.”

Referring to the statutory scheme, the Court observed that “Section 29 of the Act 1985 envisages the provision of transfer of pending cases.” It recorded that the provision makes it clear that “every suit or other proceeding before any court or other authority, immediately before the date of establishment of a tribunal under the Act 1985, shall stand transferred, on that date to the Tribunals.”

Addressing the meaning of a pending proceeding, the Court stated that “the word 'pending before a court or authority' has substantive meaning.” It explained that the relevant period extends from the filing of a matter until its final decision.

Applying the statutory provisions to the facts, the Court observed that “the writ petition remained pending until the notification dated 13.01.2026 was issued, therefore, the mandate of Section 29 of the Act 1985 would be applicable to the present case.” The Court added that the argument that the petition had been filed prior to the notification “would have no contrary effect.”

The Court also referred to Supreme Court precedent in L. Chandra Kumar V. Union Of India “the tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules.”

Regarding the reliance placed by the petitioners on an earlier judgment, the Court stated that “where an efficacious alternative 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 Tribunals.”

After evaluating the submissions, the Court recorded that “Counsel for the petitioners has failed to substantiate his arguments that the case of the petitioners do not fall under the domain of the Tribunals, constituted under the scheme of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Marks In Public Recruitment Exams Not Private Or Confidential, Disclosure To Fellow Candidate Under RTI Act Requires No Third-Party Consent: Allahabad High Court

The Court directed that “this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel for respondents thus, preliminary objection sustains. Both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy provided under the law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anand Dubey, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Surya Bhan Pandey, Learned DSGI assisted by Mr. Anagh Mishra

Case Title: Amit Gupta And Others v. Union of India And Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:12165
Case Number: Writ-A No. 226 of 2026 with Writ-A No. 132 of 2026
Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh