Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Section: VIII,42,44

Law: University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act, 1985

Section: XXXIV,38

(a)    Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)-------Arts. 42 & 44---University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act (XXXIV of 1985 ), S. 38---Associate Professor at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir--Removal from service, challenging of---Right of appeal, non-availing of---Writ petition before the High Court---Maintainability---High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis that the petitioner had the right to file an appeal before the Syndicate---Validity---In presence of any other efficacious remedy, discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction is not available to an aggrieved person---Law with respect to exercise of judicial review of public actions or inactions, in presence of alternative adequate remedy, is firmly settled---Although the decision-making powers of lower courts or other executive bodies are subject to judicial review of constitutional Courts, but it is essential to emphasize that judicial review should only be invoked as a residual jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, which must be proven---This power should not be exercised sparingly where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to an aggrieved person---Whenever an alternative statutory mechanism exists to redress the grievance of an aggrieved party, the Court will be reluctant to grant any relief---Alternative remedies may encompass various statutory mechanisms and when the public interest demands that power of judicial review should be exercised speedily, it is necessary to limit the number of cases in which such power may be exercised---In many ways, adherence to the exhaustion of alternate remedies rule helps to reduce the burden placed on constitutional Courts---In presence of an alternate remedy a writ petition is not maintainable---It is evident that under section 38 of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act, 1985, an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the Syndicate was available to the petitioner---Instead of availing this option, the petitioner rushed to the High Court and filed a writ petition just six days after his removal order was issued---High Court had not committed any illegality while…