DHIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the subject matter of the dispute falls within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "1976 Act"). The petitioner, instead of approaching the Tribunal, has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) While the learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others , reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, to contend that the petitioner ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the first instance before approaching the High Court, Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend, not without justification, that, unlike Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act or Tribunals constituted under Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India, Section 4 of the 1976 Act merely enables the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, and does not obligate him to do so before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104, wherein the Supreme Court, after taking note of its earlier decision in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra), observed thus:

(3.) While Mr. Alok Mahra may well be justified in his submission that the petitioner is not obligated to approach the Tribunal in the first instance, the fact remains that the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary and it is not as if this Court would entertain every writ petition filed by persons aggrieved by the action of the Government with regards their terms and conditions of service, for it is not in dispute that the Tribunal also has jurisdiction to entertain such matters. While, ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be invoked in such matters, this Court can always entertain a writ petition, on its jurisdiction being invoked directly, in exceptional cases. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this writ petition, and relegate the petitioner to avail his effective statutory remedy of approaching the Tribunal constituted under the 1976 Act.