HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 609(S/S) of 2009 Amit Kumar No. 90 C.P., 6AP, Police Line Udham Singh Nagar …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Ruturi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated 14.10.2008 passed by the respondent No.2-Dy. Inspector General, Kumaon Range Nainital, Uttarakhand as well as order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the appellate authority. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the State raised an objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Public Service Tribunal, as such, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should have first approached to the Tribunal. The detailed reasons have been assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. 3. In view of above, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner can seek the 2 appropriate remedy in the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while computing the period of limitation to entertain such petition to be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this court. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) 7th August, 2009 Shiv