Writ Petition against a show-cause notice is premature; petitioners must exhaust departmental remedies by filing a reply.

The petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Assistants at the Sickle Cell Institute, Raipur, on 08.10.2015.

On 01.06.2022, after nearly seven years of service, Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice contemplating a departmental inquiry on the grounds that the petitioners had exceeded the maximum age limit of 40 years at the time of their appointment.

The petitioners challenged this notice via a writ petition, claiming they were entitled to age relaxation as per the advertisement because they had previously served the same institution on a contract basis.

The respondents argued that a writ against a show-cause notice is not maintainable as no final adverse action had been taken.

1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 01.06.2022 issued on the grounds of age overage is liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to age relaxation based on their prior contractual service.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding interlocutory administrative actions, specifically that a writ petition against a mere show-cause notice is generally premature unless it is issued without jurisdiction.

It further recognized the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem," allowing the petitioners to represent their case regarding age relaxation as per the terms of the advertisement and service rules before the competent authority.

The Court also exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 to provide interim protection while directing a time-bound administrative adjudication.

The Court observed that since the petitioners had already served for seven years, the validity of their appointment and their eligibility for age relaxation required a factual determination by the respondent authorities.

Rather than quashing the notice at the threshold, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was for the petitioners to submit their explanation and supporting documents to Respondent No. 3.

The Court reasoned that the Director General, Sickle Cell Institute, is the competent authority to objectively assess whether the petitioners’ prior contractual service qualified them for relaxation under the advertisement's conditions.

By directing a "speaking order," the Court ensured that the administrative decision would be reasoned and subject to further judicial review if necessary.

The Director General, Sickle Cell Institute, was directed to consider the reply in an objective manner and pass a speaking order within 90 days.

The Court ordered that the interim protection granted on 15.06.2022 shall continue for 90 days or until a final decision is taken by the authority.

Final holding: The petition is disposed of with directions for administrative adjudication.