Tribunal must verify foundational facts before declining jurisdiction; erroneous rejection warrants remand for adjudication on merits.

The petitioner, Dr. Dinesh Sharan Thakur, challenged before the Gujarat High Court the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal’s order dated 23 December 2024 in Application No. 82 of 2024, by which the Tribunal rejected his service dispute for want of jurisdiction.

He also challenged the earlier orders dated 14 July 2021, removing him as Head of Department, and 9 March 2022, terminating his services as Supervisor/Professor.

In an earlier round, the petitioner’s writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal concerning the same service disputes had been dismissed on the ground that an efficacious statutory remedy before the Tribunal was available.

The Division Bench expressly directed that the petitioner could agitate his grievances before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal should decide them independently and in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition against that decision on 30 July 2024.

The Tribunal thereafter declined jurisdiction on the assumption that the Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College was affiliated with Sumandeep Vidyapith (Deemed University).

The respondents conceded before the High Court that the College was in fact affiliated with Gujarat University, rendering the Tribunal’s jurisdictional conclusion factually erroneous.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting Application No. 82 of 2024 for want of jurisdiction on the basis that the College was affiliated with Sumandeep Vidyapith (Deemed University)?

Whether the High Court should itself adjudicate the legality of the orders dated 14 July 2021 and 9 March 2022, instead of remanding the matter to the statutory Tribunal?

Whether Application No. 82 of 2024 was required to be restored for adjudication on merits in accordance with the directions issued in the earlier proceedings?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, together with the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006, particularly the statutory scheme conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service disputes involving covered educational institutions.

It relied on the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy ordinarily restrains the High Court from entertaining a writ petition, but does not absolutely oust its constitutional jurisdiction; maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts, as explained in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.

The Court also relied on Ramakrishna Mission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, which hold that private contractual service disputes ordinarily lack a public-law element and are not amenable to writ adjudication unless the service conditions have statutory force or another recognised public-law element exists.

The Court further applied the doctrine of judicial discipline and binding precedent, holding that the Tribunal was required to follow the earlier Division Bench determination that it was the competent statutory forum.

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction was based on a wholly incorrect foundational fact: the College was affiliated with Gujarat University, not Sumandeep Vidyapith.

Since the earlier Division Bench had already determined that the Tribunal was the appropriate statutory forum for adjudicating the petitioner’s service grievances, and that determination had remained undisturbed after dismissal of the SLP, the Tribunal was required to examine its jurisdiction with care and judicial propriety.

Its summary rejection therefore amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and generated avoidable litigation.

However, the High Court declined to decide the merits of the petitioner’s challenges to his removal as HOD and termination.

Those questions had been expressly relegated to the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings, and the availability of the statutory remedy did not justify the High Court’s direct adjudication of the service dispute under Articles 226 and 227.

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 23 December 2024 and restored Application No. 82 of 2024 to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits and in accordance with law, while complying with the directions issued by the Division Bench in the earlier proceedings.

The High Court expressly refrained from deciding the validity of the orders dated 14 July 2021 and 9 March 2022, leaving those issues for determination by the Tribunal.

In view of the petitioner’s age and the pendency of the dispute since 2021, the Tribunal was directed to accord priority and endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously.

The connected Civil Application for fixing the hearing date was disposed of.