Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 21 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1219 of 2021
Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma .......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ............ Respondents
Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent authorities to reconsider the
name of the petitioner in the Seniority/Allotment list
and the petitioner may very kindly be promoted to
the post of Tax Inspector under the Municipal
Centralized Services.
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned Notification/Office
Memorandum (bearing Letter no.1782/Sh.Vi.Ni.-
Sh.Vi.Ni.-53(Vividh-Vikalp)/06) dated 14.09.2020
issued by the Directorate of Urban Development
only with regard to the present petitioner (Annexure
No.7).
(iii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 1 to decide the
representations of the petitioner dated 23.08.2021
(Annexure No. 9) as expeditiously as possible.
(iv) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
(v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioners."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working
with the respondent no.2 since 2003. Pursuant to a notification dated
28.09.2019, issued by the Directorate, Urban Development,
Uttarakhand, the petitioner opted to join the Municipal Centralized
Services. A list of the candidates, who opted for it was published,
which found the name of the petitioner. But, subsequently the name of
the petitioner was deleted from the list. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner
is before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the
learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view
of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public
Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he
restricts his prayer to the extent that the respondent no.1 be directed to
decide the representation of the petitioner dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure
No.9 to the writ petition) within the given time.
6. On behalf of the State, a statement is given that the
representation dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition),
will be decided by the respondent no.1 within a period of two months
from today.
7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the
respondent no.1, to decide the representation dated 23.08.2021
(Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) within a period of two months
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.)
21.09.2021
Sanjay
