Lalit Mohan Manral And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 773 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 404 of 2021

Lalit Mohan Manral and others                              ...... Petitioners

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                           ..... Respondents


Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Narayan Dutt Bhatt and Mr. Sunil Vashisth, Brief Holders for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.



                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

"(i) To quash the entire promotional exercise carried out by the respondents as far as the cadre of IRB/PAC (vide advertisement dated 22.01.2021) and further the promotional exercise may be carried out after declaring the syllabus for the IRB/PAC examination, more particularly the Police Procedure/Law question paper making it unique for IRB/PAC personnel.

(ii) To direct the respondents to conduct separate examination with respect to IRB/PAC as far as the promotion to the post of Head Constable and Platoon Commander is concerned.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

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

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are presently posted as Head Constables and Constables in Provincial Armed

Constabulary (for short, "PAC") and Indian Reserve Battalion (for short, "IRB"). It is the case of the petitioners that an exercise for promotion is being undertaken by the State of Uttarakhand, but in the examination, question papers were out of syllabus.

4. At the very outset, the Court requested learned Senior Counsel as to why this petition pertaining to service matters be entertained by this Court, in view of existence of alternate efficacious remedy before the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the U.P. State Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. To it, learned Senior Counsel would submit that he restricts his prayer to the effect that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition within a given time frame.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the representation submitted by the petitioners may be decided within a period of six weeks from now.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.3 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners (Annexure No.5) within a period of six weeks from today. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.03.2021 Sanjay