SURESH SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. The petitioner is a Land Acquisition Amin and is challeng ing the suspension order, dated 11-6-98, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the peti tion.

(2.) IN my opinion, against the im pugned order the petitioner has an alter native remedy of approaching the U. P Public Service Tribunal. It has been held in State of U. P. v. Labh Chand, AIR 1994 SC 754 (vide paragraph 15) that the U. P. Public Service Tribunal has exclusive and exhaustive jurisdiction in the matters which come within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal is a specialised body which deals with the public servants and hence the petitioner should avail of the alternative remedy before the Tribunal.

(3.) IN L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of INdia, 1997 (3) JT 589, it was held by the Supreme Court that parties should first approach the Tribunal and only after the decision of the Tribunal they can approach the High Court. No doubt this decision was in the context of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, but in my opinion, the same principle will also apply to the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. Hence in my opinion, the petitioner should first ap proach the U. P. Public Service Tribunal and only if he has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal he can come to the High Court.