IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 85 of 2006 (S/B) Veerendra Kumar s/o Sri Kalicharan, R/o Government Girls’ Polytechnic Suddhowala, District Dehradun ……. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Technical Education, Dehradun 2. Director, Technical Education Uttaranchal, Srinagar, Garhwal 3. Deputy Secretary, Uttaranchal Government, District Dehradun 4. Ramesh Chandra, Uttaranchal Technical Board, Roorkee, District Haridwar ….. Respondents Sri Sharad Shrama, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri J.P. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for respondents 1 to 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sri Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri J. P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. They are heard on admission. 2. Sri Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the ‘Public Service Tribunal’. 3. Petitioner Veerendra Kumar has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order no. 903/XXIV (8)/2005- 44/2005 dated 28.11.2005 passed by the respondent no. 1 annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. 2 II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Head of Department Computer fixing the seniority above respondent no. 5. III. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the petition.” 4. The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure No. 4) passed by respondent no. 1 whereby respondent no. 4 – Ramesh Chandra has been promoted on the post of Head of Department, Computers. 5. Sri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not demonstrate as to why the relief sought by the petitioner in regard to the quashing of the impugned order (Annexure No. 4) cannot be granted by the ‘Public Service Tribunal’. 6. As the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Public Service Tribunal, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the petitioner’s other prayer in regard to writ of mandamus is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has not made any representation to the respondents for the redressal of his grievances, which is a mandatory requirement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 9. With the above order, CLMA No. 2762 of 2006 also stands disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 28.08.2006 28.08.2006 A