Both appellant and respondent had applied to an advertisement for the appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta in respect of Janpad Panchayat, Bhilaigarh and after a selection process, the appellant was appointed for the same by an order dated 12-10-2017. \u00a0Respondent preferred an appeal before Collector, and subsequently, Collector set aside the appointment of the appellant. \u00a0Thereafter, the respondent was appointed for the said position on 25-6-2018. \u00a0The appellant filed a writ petition challenging her removal from service by collector. \u00a0Single Judge passed a stay order\u00a0 \u00a0However, said writ petition was subsequently dismissed for failure to comply with certain directions which were peremptory in nature. \u00a0Assessee filed a writ appeal on the ground that once the writ petition was admitted, Single Judge ought not to have relegated such admission by directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.\u00a0 Division \u00a0Bench held that as a proposition of law it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, same cannot be dismissed on grounds of availability of alternative remedy at the time of the hearing. Further, since it was not a case where the writ appellate court ought to have exercised discretion to entertain the writ petition, there was no infirmity with the view taken by the Single judge.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Writ-Statutory remedy-Alternative remedy-Writ petition was pending for 13 years-Affirming the order of a single judge division bench held that as a proposition of law, it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, same can\u2019t be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy at the time of hearing. [Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8Kq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33630"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33631,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33630\/revisions\/33631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}