Girish Chandra Tiwari vs Board Of Revenue Uttarakhand At Dehradun And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Via Video Conferencing)

The petitioner before this Court had filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus and a direction to the respondents to decide his

representation dated 22.03.2021. In fact, by virtue of the representation, which has been preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Board

of Revenue, Dehradun, what he has claimed for is a promotion and redetermination of his seniority qua Mr. Suresh Chandra Budlakoti, who has

already been placed senior to the petitioner in the final seniority list and later promoted too.

Brief facts, which are under consideration in the writ petition, by way of pleadings which has been raised by the petitioner, though without

impleading Mr. Suresh Chandra Budlakoti, as a party respondent, is that as per the year of the recruitment of the petitioner i.e. in the year 1990, on the

post of Sub Inspector, the petitioner contends that he ought to have been placed senior to Mr. Suresh Chandra Budlakoti, based upon the marks which

was obtained by him in the process of selection. But, however, thereafter number of stages of proceedings have been drawn, whereby the subsequent

promotions, regularisations orders have been granted to the employees, thus appointed, as a consequence of the selection on 30.09.1990. But, so far as

looking to the recommendation, which the petitioner wants to enforce by seeking a direction to the respondents to take a decision on his representation,

this Court is of the view that if any decision is thus directed to be taken on the representation, it is likely to affect the right of Mr. Suresh Chandra

Budlakoti, who has already been placed senior to the petitioner. Besides the fact its not a statutory representation, which could be directed to be

decided in a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In that eventuality, since it is an interse controversy to be decided with regard to determination of seniority and ultimate promotion, to the next

superior post, an appropriate recourse available for the petitioner would be to approach before the Public Services Tribunal. Because, it would entail

the consideration of facts, ever since the date of their respective induction till the date of claim of the promotion, as raised by the petitioner in the

present writ petition.

Hence, the petitioner is relegated back to approach before the Public Services Tribunal, for the purposes of redressal of his grievance, because

even otherwise also, the representation sought to be directed to be decided since not being statutory in nature, no writ of mandamus as such would lie

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.