Alternate remedy of appeal

Contention of the petitioner was that as the Service Tribunal was not functioning, therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition against the transfer order

Validity

Service Tribunal was not functional, the petitioner could not be non-suited on the ground of non-functioning of Tribunal, as the petitioner could not be given directions to approach the non-functional Service Tribunal

High Court, before exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, must be satisfied about the non-availability or inefficacy of alternate remedy provided under law and once it was shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that alternate remedy was expedient and effective, then obviously High Court would be reluctant to exercise constitutional jurisdiction

To disentitle a person from extra-ordinary relief, the alternate remedy available must be a remedy in law i.e. remedium juris, which was not less convenient, beneficial and effective

To effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution the remedy available under the law must be able to accomplish the same purpose which was sought to achieve through a constitutional petition

If no adequate or alternate remedy was provided under the law constitutional jurisdiction could be set into motion for the redress of an aggrieved person

Constitutional petition could be invoked without waiting the statutory period of 90 days unless the Service Tribunal was functioning.