0

Controversy has to be decided in totality by one Judicial platform available under law: High Court of Uttarakhand.

If the matter in question is already sub-judice before the Public Services Tribunal, which would be an appropriate platform available to the petitioner also, as it would be in the interest of justice, as well as in the interest of all the litigants also, who are before this Court, that they should raise their claim competitively before the Public Services Tribunal itself then the claim should be raised before the public services in totality. A single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, in the matter of Navin Chandra Mathpal And Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 883 of 2021).

In the present case, initially, the controversy was raised by one Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal, by preferring a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 162 of 2002, Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, whereby, a mandamus was sought to treat the services of the petitioner therein to have been regularised in the light of the Government Order. The writ petition was considered by the coordinate Bench of this court. The coordinate bench was relegated back to the respondents with a direction to decide the representation in relation to the seniority of the petitioner. This judgment of Single Judge was challenged before the divisional bench of the court, which was dismissed, against which a civil appeal was preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which too was dismissed, whereby the court upheld the decision of the Single Judge which stated the services of the respondents therein were to be treated to have been regularised in L.T. Grade. Thereafter the matter was again dealt with a lot of writ petitions and 15 other petitions which were decided by the Division Bench of this Court.

There had been a number of private individuals who had filed their respective caveats, who wanted to contest the writ petition, on its hearing at the admission stage. Few counsels for the caveators raised the objection that since they were caveators they too should be given the chance to be heard on the motion of the writ petition.  To this, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that caveators were not required to be heard because their seniority was not being affected at all. The advocate of one of the caveators also informed the court that as against the same order deciding the representation, which was affecting the inter-se seniority of the teachers, working in the Government Secondary Schools in the L.T. Grade, as well as in the Lecturers Grade, the selection process, for which was contemplated by the respondents, some of the L.T. Grade teachers had already approached the Public Services Tribunal.

The court observed that-“this Court is refraining itself to entertain the writ petition itself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the controversy itself has to be decided in its totality by one judicial platform available under law.” Further, the court held that when the matter in question was already sub-judice before the Public Service Tribunal then it would be in the interest of justice, as well as in the interest of all the litigants also, who are before this Court, that they should raise their claim compositive before the Public Services Tribunal itself.

Thereby the court relegated the matter and directed the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Public Services Tribunal.

Click here for the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat