ARVIND KUMAR SATVARIA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Yuvraj Samant with Ms. Bina Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand-respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission-respondent no. 4.

(2.) This application is filed seeking review of the order passed by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 04 of 2018 dtd. 11/2/2019. We had, in the said order, observed that, as the disputes raised in the writ petition could be effectively adjudicated by the Tribunal, we saw no reason to entertain the writ petition. We had, therefore, relegated the petitioners to avail their effective statutory remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. Leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, we had dismissed the writ petition. Review is now sought of this order passed by us.

(3.) The submission urged, on behalf of the review applicants, by Mr. Yuvraj Samant, learned Counsel, is that the remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal is not efficacious since substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case; it also involves interpretation of several judgments of this Court; similar issues are also pending before this Court; and, in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in "Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India" (order in Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 2019 dtd. 29/7/2019), this Court should take a holistic view while examining whether or not to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal.