Delhi High Court Reaffirms: Alternative Remedy Not an Absolute Bar to Filing a Writ Petition

 

Delhi High Court Reaffirms: Alternative Remedy Not an Absolute Bar to Filing a Writ Petition
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and can be exercised even when statutory remedies are available, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. This ruling has significant implications for employees challenging termination or dismissal orders, particularly in the context of educational institutions governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

Case Background

The case revolved around Harshpal Singh Negi, a Physical Education Teacher (PET) at St. Mary’s School, Safdarjung Enclave, who was terminated from service following disciplinary proceedings. Negi challenged his termination by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, seeking to declare the disciplinary actions against him as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the Delhi School Education Rules.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner should approach the Delhi School Tribunal (DST)—a statutory body established under the Delhi School Education Act—as an alternative remedy was available. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the availability of an alternative remedy should not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

Key Findings of the Delhi High Court

The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, delivered a nuanced judgment, addressing several critical legal issues:

1. Writ Jurisdiction Not Automatically Ousted by Alternative Remedies: The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shashi Gaur v. NCT (2001) 10 SCC 445, where it was held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not take away the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. The court clarified that while tribunals and appellate bodies are available, petitioners cannot be forced to take that route if constitutional rights are at stake.
2. Discretionary Power of the High Court: The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary. While the High Court may, in appropriate cases, relegate a petitioner to an alternative remedy, it must do so after applying its mind to the facts of the case. The court cannot preemptively dismiss a writ petition solely on the grounds of an alternative remedy.
3. Precedents Support Writ Petitions in Special Cases: The court cited several precedents, including Godrej Sara Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer (2023 SCC Online SC 95), where the Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The court reiterated that the High Court must decide on a case-by-case basis whether to entertain a writ petition or direct the petitioner to an alternative forum.
4. Relegating to Tribunal Must Be a Judicial Decision: The court criticized the Single Judge’s approach of summarily dismissing the writ petition without considering the merits of the case. It held that relegating a petitioner to an alternative forum must be a judicial decision, not an automatic rule. The High Court must evaluate whether the alternative remedy is equally efficacious and whether the case warrants the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Final Verdict

The Delhi High Court quashed the earlier order of the Single Judge and ruled that the petitioner is free to either file an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal or challenge his termination through a fresh writ petition. The court left it to the petitioner to choose his remedy, emphasizing that if he opts for a writ petition, the Single Judge must decide whether to entertain it or relegate him to the statutory remedy.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching implications for employees and educational institutions alike:

• Flexibility of Constitutional Remedies: The ruling reinforces the flexibility of constitutional remedies under Article 226, ensuring that employees are not left without recourse in cases of arbitrary termination or dismissal.
• Protection Against Arbitrary Actions: By allowing petitioners to directly approach the High Court in appropriate cases, the judgment provides an additional layer of protection against arbitrary actions by employers.
• Judicial Discretion: The judgment underscores the importance of judicial discretion in deciding whether to entertain a writ petition or direct the petitioner to an alternative forum.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Harshpal Singh Negi v. St. Mary’s School is a significant reaffirmation of the principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226. By clarifying that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to filing a writ petition, the court has ensured that constitutional remedies remain accessible to those who need them the most. This ruling is a welcome development for employees seeking justice against arbitrary termination and serves as a reminder of the High Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional rights.

Case Title: Harshpal Singh Negi v. St. Mary’s School, Safdarjung Enclave & Ors.

Citation: LPA 1103/2024

Bench:

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
• Hon’ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain