IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 42 of 2009 (S/B) C.M.S. Bisht. .……… Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. ………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Menaka Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondents Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner claims to be a member of the State Civil Service (Executive Branch). His first induction into the service was in the year 1981 in the erstwhile composite State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequent upon the reorganisation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he was allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand. Through the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner claims promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. Insofar as the instant claim is concerned, it is necessary to notice that there are three sources of recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service, one by way of direct recruitment regulated by the IAS (Competitive Examination) Rules, 1954; the second by promotion from the State Civil Service regulated by the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955; and the third from the Non-State Civil Service Officers regulated by the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. The claim of the petitioner is for promotion from the State Civil Service, but it is as against a vacancy reserved for the Non-State Civil Service. In opposing the claim of the petitioner, although a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, yet in Paragraph 3 of the afore-stated counter affidavit, a preliminary objection has been raised by asserting that the claim of the petitioner being for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service, which is a Central Service, it is imperative for the petitioner to avail of his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal 2 under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim raised by the petitioner. When confronted with the afore-stated preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner has already rendered 26 years of service and is close to his retirement and, as such, the claim raised by the petitioner may be frustrated by the time the matter is adjudicated upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. We are satisfied that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. We, therefore, dispose of the instant Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, if he is so advised, in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 01.12.2009 01.12.2009 G