IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 249 of 2011 (S/B) Sri Ravi Bijarniya and another ….…… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the intervener. Date of Judgment: 12.09.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Intervention Application No. 9411 of 2011 Intervention application is allowed. Writ Petition No. 249 of 2011 (S/B) In the writ petition, it is being contended that the posts of Assistant Directors are promotional posts, for which the feeding posts are the posts of District Information Officers. It is being contended that the posts of District Information Officers can be supplied by direct recruitment or by promotion from different posts. It is being contended that for direct recruitment as well as for promotion to the post of District Information Officer, the rules mandate consultation with the Public Service Commission. In the writ petition, it is being contended that the private respondents, though are occupying the posts of District Information Officers, but occupation by them of those posts have not been approved by the Public Service Commission. 2. No contention has been put forward in the petition in respect of the added respondent, but similar is the contention of the petitioners in regard to him. On the premise that the private respondents and the added respondent are occupying the posts of District Information Officers without approval / consultation with the Public Service Commission, it is being contended that they are not entitled to be in the seniority list of District Information Officers 2 to be prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Information. 3. It is the contention in the writ petition that while preparing the seniority list of District Information Officers, prepared for giving promotion to the posts of Assistant Directors of Information, the objection of the petitioners, as regards the eligibility of the respondents to be in the said seniority list, has not been considered by the appropriate authority. 4. We think that this controversy is required to be threshed out first before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. We, accordingly, relegate the petitioners to the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand for the purpose of deciding the said issue. However, until such time the issue is so decided, it may not be appropriate to pave the way of promotion of the petitioners, private respondents and the added respondent and, accordingly, the order dated 2nd September, 2011, passed by this Court, directing not to give effect to the DPC scheduled to be held on 5th September, 2011, is extended until 4th November, 2011 with liberty to the petitioners to seek from the Tribunal extension of the said order as and by way of interim measure or any other interim order and also authorizing the Tribunal to accord any other interim order as it may deem fit and appropriate. It shall be open to the Tribunal also to refuse to extend the above order or to grant any other interim order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 12.09.2011 12.09.2011 Amit