THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 879 of 2010. Laxmi Prasad Gairola, S/O Sri Jagdish Prasad Gairola, Patwari- Mathor, Tehsil Gairsain, District Chamoli. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. N.S.Negi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Date September 24, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 8182 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-8-2010 passed by the Collector, Chamoli/respondent no. 3 (filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) whereby Mr. Dalveer Singh Negi, Patwari, Gauna, Tehsil Chamoli was promoted for a period of 42 days as Registrar Kaungo-2 at Tehsil Tharali on temporary basis against the vacant post of Registrar Kanungo. The petitioner claims to be the senior-most Patwari. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name was not considered for promotion on the post of Registrar Kanungo on the basis of adverse entry awarded by the Collector, Chamoli, while the representation against the adverse entry dated 22-4-2006 is still pending before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. The learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the petitioner is a State government servant. He has an efficacious alternate remedy to approach the Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand at Nainital for redressal of his grievance. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others 2 [2006(2) U.D., 439], wherein it has been held in paragraph no. 9 as under:- “9. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the matters of alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the cases, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available. If anybody approaches the High Court without availing the alternate remedy the High Court would ensure that he had made out a strong case or that there exist good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. The rule of alternative remedy is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. When the petitioner files the petition before the High Court he should also state the reasons as to why he thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. The High Court should not bypass the said Tribunal where the government servant is aggrieved by an order of the government pertaining to the service matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” The petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand, Nainital, for redressal of his grievance. On the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach to the Tribunal concerned. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP