Kushlanand Tripathi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 768 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                   Writ Petition (S/S) No. 401 of 2021

Kushlanand Tripathi                                            ...... Petitioner

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                               ..... Respondents


Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.



                                 JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned advertisement dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition) issued by respondent No.3 to the extent applicability of amended Rules, 2019, so far it relates to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to allow/permit the petitioner to participate in the counseling, which is scheduled to be held on 16.03.2021 & 19.03.2021.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to complete the selection process as per advertisement dated 19.06.2019 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition) as per Rules, 2014, so far it relates to the petitioner.

(iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

(v) award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher and he is being denied to participate in the counseling for L.T. Grade Teacher, which is promotional post.

4. The Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the matter should be entertained by this Court in view of the existence of alternate efficacious remedy in the State Public Services Tribunal as constituted under U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. To it, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file his claim before the Public Services Tribunal.

5. Liberty is granted.

6. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner is free to raise his claim before the Public Services Tribunal.

7. Let a certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.03.2021 Sanjay