IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1868 of 2010 (M/S) Suman Singh Valdia and anr. ……Petitioners Versus Secretary Administrate Department & others. ………..Respondents Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Dated:-29-10-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- “I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash entire selection process of executive of Secretariat Association 2010-12 in pursuant to the election notice dated 20.08.2010 and declaration of results dated 24.09.2010 issued by respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 4 and 13 respectively). II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to conduct fresh election of the executive of secretariat association for the year 2010-2012 according to the Rules 1979 and constitution of the Uttarakhand secretariat association. 2 III) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.” According to the petitioner, the ground of challenging the entire selection process is that as per provision of Section 2 (d) of the Uttar Pradesh (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979, the word “Association” means a group of employees of a distinct category of Government Servants in a particular department. It is further contended that as per Section 5(c) of the Rules, the condition precedent for recognition is membership of the Association and is restricted to a distinct category of serving Government employees (excluding retired) and represents more than 50 percent of the total strength of that particular category. The petitioners’ grievance is that the Association-Uttarakhand Secretariat Association has its own constitution and is recognized by the Government under said Rules. The recognition of said Association was obtained by fraud and including the other Estate Department employees. Section 8 of said Rules provides for withdrawal of recognition of Association if the same was obtained on wrong facts or suppression of material facts or by fraudulent mis- representation of facts. Section 8(d) of said Rules further provides that the recognition may be withdrawn if the Association has made breach of any of the conditions laid down in rules 4,5,6 or 7, as the case may be. In Sub-clause (2) of Section 8 it is mentioned that the recognition granted to an Association shall not be withdrawn except after an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action has been afforded. The petitioners have challenged the election process of the Uttarakhand Secretariat Association 2010-12. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979, the petitioners may approach respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of the recognition of Association or they may file a civil suit for challenging the election process. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, available to the petitioners. (B.S.Verma, J.) 29-10-2010 S