IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 156 of 2011 Vivek Sharma and others ….…… Appellants Versus Union of India and others ……….Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikash Pande, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. No one appears for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Date of Judgment: 27.07.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) It appears to be the contention of the appellants that the purpose of the writ petition was to obtain a direction upon the Distance Education Council to give recognition to a particular course undertaken by the appellants. It was contended that the appellants did not seek any direction upon their employer, namely, Instruments Research and Development Establishment, Raipur Road, Dehradun and, accordingly, rejection of the writ petition on the ground that the appellants have an alternative remedy, in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, may not be correct. 2. It appears that in addition to the prayer for obtaining such a direction, there was a prayer in the writ petition to permit the appellants to participate in the competitive examination for promotion to be conducted by the employer of the appellants. For that relief, appellants were required to approach the Tribunal, constituted under the said Act, but the Tribunal, constituted under the said Act, had no jurisdiction to consider a prayer of the appellants for grant of recognition to the course undertaken by the appellants. 3. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal by permitting the appellants to file a fresh writ petition, seeking such direction, and at the same time, permitting the appellants to approach the Tribunal, constituted 2 under the said Act, to permit them to participate in the competitive examination for promotion. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.07.2011 27.07.2011 Amit