Awatar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result dated 12-04-2023 of Platoon Commander (Annexure no.4 to the petition) insofar as the inclusion of respondent no.4 is concerned and insofar as the non inclusion of petitioner is concerned.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith include the name of the petitioner after striking off and excluding the name of the respondent no.4 herein in the impugned result dated 12-04-2023 of Platoon Commander (Annexure no.4 to the petition) and further direct the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioner to take the mandatory training of Platoon Commander.

(iii) pass any other suitable order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

At the very outset, the Court wanted to know as to how the petition may be entertained in view of creation of the State Public Services Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), as constituted under the Uttarakhand Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (“the Act”).

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner seeks urgent immediate relief, which the Tribunal may not grant. Hence, the petition is maintainable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that the dispute involved is the service matter, which is entertainable by the Tribunal. He would also submit that, in fact, the Tribunal is not devoid of jurisdiction to grant interim order.

In fact, Section 5 (5A) of the Act provides that interim order may not be passed unless respondents are given opportunity to be heard on the matter and for that purpose, they should be given 15 days time to file reply. But, according to its proviso, the necessity of hearing the respondent and giving 15 days time may be dispensed with in exceptional circumstances, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do or preventing any loss to the petitioner which cannot be adequately compensated in money.

On various occasions, this Court has dealt with the issue of entertaining the writ petition in service matters. In Writ Petition (S/S) No. 305 of 2021, Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, this issue has been discussed by this Court quite in detail.

In the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation& Rural Engineering Services, UP and others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “when the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal.”

In the instant case, even the Tribunal may pass ad-interim order provided it meets with the procedural requirement of the proviso to Section 5 (5-A) of the Act.

The dispute is much entertainable by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason as exceptional, which may command this Court to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.