Uttarakhand High Court
Yogesh Kumal Kuksal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 223 of 2021
Yogesh Kumal Kuksal ......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Amar Murti Shukla , Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional CSC for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
12.06.2020 (Annexure -4) issued by respondent no.3
and order dated 1.8.2020 (Annexure-6) issued by
respondent no.2.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents
not to ignore the candidature of the petitioner in the
ongoing promotional exercise for the post of Leading
Fireman/Fire Service Driver by ignoring the impugned
order dated 12.6.2020 (Annexure-4) issued by
respondent no.3 and order dated 1.8.2020 (Annexure-
6) issued by respondent no.2 and the result of the
petitioner of said promotional exercise be declared.
c) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
d) Award cost of the petition."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State
counsel and perused the record.
3. The petitioner was recruited as Fireman in the year 2007. He
was awarded a censure entry on 12.06.2020. It was challenged, but it
remained. It is the case of the petitioner that just because of the censure
entry, his result for the departmental promotion examination, has not been
declared.
4. At the very outset, this Court requested learned counsel for
the petitioner to tell as to why this writ petition should be entertained
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of existence of
State Public Services Tribunal as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that
this matter may be entertained by the State Public Services Tribunal, but
he seeks indulgence that directions may be issued to the Tribunal to
consider the claim of the petitioner expeditiously.
6. The petitioner is a public servant and the dispute is related to
the service matter, which can very much be entertained by the State
Public Services Tribunal and the petitioner can avail efficacious remedy
from there. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant writ
petition may not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.02.2021
Jitendra
