Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention, and finality of earlier order prevents reopening accommodation relief.

Availability of an effective statutory appeal under the service regulations weighed against writ intervention under Article 226, because the petitioner had already invoked that remedy and no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing it; the writ petition was therefore not maintainable on that point, and the petitioner was required to pursue the appellate process. The request concerning retention of official quarters could not be reopened because an earlier Division Bench order on the same issue had attained finality; that relief was barred by res judicata. The petition was rejected, while the appellate authority was directed to decide the statutory appeal expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability and pendency of the statutory appeal under the service regulations; (ii) whether the prayer concerning retention of official quarters could be entertained despite the earlier order having attained finality.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability and pendency of the statutory appeal under the service regulations.

Analysis: The regulations provided an appellate remedy against the order of dismissal, and the appellate authority was identified by the regulatory scheme itself. The petitioner had already invoked that remedy and was seeking repeated writ intervention instead of cooperating with the statutory process. The availability of an effective alternate remedy, coupled with the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226, weighed against entertainment of the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this issue, and the petitioner was required to pursue and cooperate in the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): whether the prayer concerning retention of official quarters could be entertained despite the earlier order having attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench order had already dealt with the question of occupation of the official quarters and had become final between the parties. Once that issue stood concluded, the same relief could not be reopened in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The prayer regarding the official quarters was barred by res judicata and could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, the statutory appeal was left to be decided expeditiously by the competent appellate authority, and the petitioner's challenge to the ancillary accommodation relief failed.

---