AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 153 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Petitioner was appointed as a Registration Clerk on 06.02.1991. The services, as per petition are governed by the Uttarakhand Sub-Registrar Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015. Petitioner is aggrieved by the process of promotion which is under way. He seeks relief in connection thereto.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would withdraw the writ petition, so as to refer the claim before the State Public Services Tribunal.
5 The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.