Santosh Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This intra-Court Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 530 of 2020 dated 09.06.2020.

The respondents-writ petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking maintenance of status quo regarding the promotional exercise

being undertaken by the official respondents, since Claim Petition No. 23/NB/DB/2018 filed by them, challenging the validity of the seniority-list dated

04.09.2018, was still pending before the Tribunal.

The respondent-writ petitioners’ complaint before the learned Single Judge was that the Tribunal was not in a position to decide their

interlocutory application necessitating their having to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It was contended on behalf of the State that, since the respondents-writ petitioners had already approached the Public Services Tribunal for interim

relief, the writ petition was not maintainable. This contention is based on the doctrine of election which prohibits a person from availing two remedies

simultaneously for the same relief.

The learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, granted liberty to the respondents-writ petitioners to approach the Public Services Tribunal

by filing an appropriate application in the pending Claim Petition within four weeks, and has directed that status quo shall be maintained for a period of

four weeks. The four weeks’ period would expire by 7th July, 2020.

While Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the delay on the part of the Public Services Tribunal, in disposing of the

interlocutory application, is because of the non-cooperation of the respondents-writ petitioners themselves, since it is they who were not present before

the Tribunal for three or four hearings, Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would draw our attention to the

proceedings of the Public Service Tribunal, wherein time was granted to the respondents to file their rejoinder affidavit, after clubbing this Claim

Petition along with Claim Petition No. 10/NB/DB/2019.

While this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, would, ordinarily, not interfere with

the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, the complaint in this Special Appeal is that the entire promotional exercise has come to a

standstill. As interdicting the promotional exercise, now being undertaken, may cause administrative inconvenience, besides depriving the eligible

candidates of occupying a higher post consequent on their promotion, it is but appropriate that the interlocutory application, pending before the Public

Services Tribunal for a considerable length of time, be decided early.

Both Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, submit that the

parties they represent are ready and willing to argue the interlocutory application any day on which the matter is listed for hearing before the Public

Services Tribunal, and they would not seek any adjournment.

Suffice it, instead of keeping this Special Appeal pending on the file of this Court, to direct the Public Services Tribunal to hear and decide the

interlocutory application forthwith and, in any event, within ten days from today.

The submission of learned counsel on either side, that they would not seek adjournment, is recorded and it is made clear that, in case either of them

makes an any attempt to drag on proceedings, it is open to the Tribunal to decide the interlocutory application without giving them any further time.

With the aforesaid modification, the Special Appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 18.06.2020.