IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2)(b) Description of Case W.P.No. 1265 (S/S) of 2006 Date of decision :- 06-11-2006 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for reporting Date :- 06-11-2006 Initials of Judge Note :- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. 2 HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, AT NAINITAL Writ petition No. 1265 (S/S) of 2006 Sarveshwar Dutt Bhatt S/o Late L.N. Bhatt Presently working as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) Stenographer, Uttaranchal Police Headquarters Dehradun R/o 53 Type III, Near Shiv Mandir Police Line Dehradun …petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and 10 others …Respondents Sri H.C. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Shah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4/State Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - “i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to call for the record and quash the impugned promotion order dated 31.12.2004 (filed as Annexure-19) passed by the Additional Director General (Administration) Uttaranchal Dehradun. OR Alternatively issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to 4 to hold D.P.C. forthwith for the petitioner to the post of Inspector (M) and if found suitable to promote the petitioner with effect 31.12.2004 as Inspector (M)CA. i.e. date from which several junior were promoted to the rank of Inspector (M). ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare the cadrewise seniority list as per rules for the petitioner and other cadres and then to consider the promotion of the petitioner and other 5 officials so promoted as Inspection (M) vide promotion order dated 31.12.2004 (filed as Annexure-19) mentioned at serial No. 1 to 5. 3 iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the seniority of petitioner in the matter of promoting/confirmation vis-à-vis 5 juniors (2 U.P. allottees) promoted by promotion order dated 31.12.2004. iv) To issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. V) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) Grade III Stenographer. Seniority list of different ranks were prepared in which the petitioner had also found place. Therefore, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Sub Inspector (M) Stenographer. The petitioner opted for the State of Uttaranchal when the options were invited from the employees serving in the erstwhile State of U.P. The petitioner was provisionally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal and he joined his duties in the State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner was attached to I.G.P. C.I.D., Uttaranchal and with other officers in the headquarter from time to time. The Government of India created 33 senior posts under the cadre strength for the State of Uttaranchal. The State of Uttaranchal wrote a letter to the Director General of Police and gave the approval for the creation of 7 posts of Inspector (M) against the demand of 8 posts. The Central Government finally allocated to the petitioner to the State of Uttaranchal under section 73 (2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioner has submitted his representation to the respondents for his seniority and promotion but no heed was paid by the respondents. The respondents issued the promotion order of 7 officials who were junior to the petitioner to the post of Inspector (M) 4 filling one vacancy of C.I.D. cadre by Headquarter cadre personal thereby promoting 2 officials who had finally been allocated to the State of U.P. The petitioner again submitted his representation to the authorities concerned but his grievance was not redressed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this court. 3. Short counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which the respondents had pleaded that the petitioner had alternative remedy to file a claim petition before Uttaranchal Public Service Tribunal, as such, the petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard Sri H.C Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.P. Shah, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State and perused the record. 5. The reliefs sought clearly reveal that the petitioner had a grievance with the promotion of 8 persons who had been arrayed as respondents in the petition and he wants the quashment of the promotion order made by the respondents. The petitioner had also grievance that proper seniority list had not been drawn by the respondents, as such, he had been deprived from promotion. The petitioner had a remedy to seek quashment of those orders u/s 4 of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act applicable to Uttaranchal. 6. This case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 22nd September, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S), Bhuvan 5 Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition devoids of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly The parties shall bear their own costs. 8. All applications pending in this case (including amendment application) are stand disposed of in terms of the judgment. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 6th November, 2006 Shiv