1 2025:CGHC:5496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 623 of 2025 1 Divyanshu Swain S/o Shri Dibakar Swain Aged About 33 Years Working As Post Graduate Junior Resident Anaesthesiology Aiims, Raipur R/o Room No. Bhorway Residence, Near Panchandam Mandir, Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o House No. 112, Tulasiour, P.O. Bhandari, Polkari Bhadrak, Odisha ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 The Executive Director All India Institute Of Medical Science, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 The Chief Executive Officer All India Institute Of Medical Science Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 The Dean (Academics) All India Institute Of Medical Science, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Shri B.P. Rao, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Post Graduate Junior Resident Doctor in Anaesthesiology department AIIMS, Raipur, is questioning the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been rusticated for a period of one year from the college. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order dated 16.10.2024, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the competent authority vide appeal memo dated 16.11.2024, but till date, the same has not been considered and decided by the competent authority. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 would submit that AIIMS has been notified in the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner may approach the CAT. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 16.10.2024 and the appeal memo 16.11.2024. 5. As far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 that the petitioner is having alternative remedy to approach the CAT is concerned, from perusal of the pleadings it is manifest that the petitioner is a student and he is prosecuting his studies of Post Graduation in AIIMS and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been enacted with an object to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services whereas the present petition is not relating to service jurisprudence, as the petitioner has been rusticated from 3 the college by order dated 16.10.2024 and as he has preferred an appeal before the competent authority and is seeking a limited prayer to consider the same within a stipulated period. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is maintainable and it is directed that the appeal pending before the competent authority by the petitioner vide appeal memo dated 16.11.2024 be considered and decided within a period of 30 days from today, in accordance with law, on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. 8. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti