IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Special Appeal No. 63 of 2010 Radhey Shyam and others ………….. Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents (2) Special Appeal No. 64 of 2010 Mukhtar Ahmed ………….. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents (3) Special Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Mohan Singh Negi and others ………….. Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents (4) Special Appeal No. 66 of 2010 Manoj Kumar and others ………….. Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 19.11.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) These appeals raise similar contentions in the backdrop of similar facts and, accordingly, heard and decided together. 2 2. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions was an order dated 20th October 2003, whereby the appellants, who were earlier Class IV employees and promoted as Class III employees, were reverted back to Class IV. The said reversion order was passed in view of an order passed by this Court holding that the promotions given to the petitioners were in breach of Rule 4 of the Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994. Petitioners were not parties to the writ petition, on which the said order was passed by this Court. The writ petitions of the appellants were not entertained in view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy available to the appellants, as it was thought that the appellants can have the remedy sought for in the writ petitions before the Public Services Tribunal. It is doubtful, whether Public Services Tribunal could declare on a claim petition that the views expressed by this Court in a writ petition resulting in the order affecting the petitioners as inappropriate. Be that as it may, petitioners, instead of approaching the Public Services Tribunal, filed review applications before this Court with applications for condonation of delay. The said review applications have been rejected upon dismissing the applications for condonation of delay. In praesenti admittedly Public Services Tribunal is not functioning. The appellants are accordingly remediless. Further it would be efficacious to have the dispute raised in the writ petitions sorted out by this Court, inasmuch as, the order impugned in the writ petitions is a fall out of a decision rendered by this Court in yet another writ petition, to which the appellants were not parties. 3. We, accordingly, set aside the order under review as well as the order dated 11th August, 2008 declining to entertain the writ petitions. Let the writ petitions be heard on merit. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.11.2010 P. Singh