JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated July, 1, 1997 promoting certain persons to the post of Secretary Mandi Samiti Grade-II.
2. Against such an order the petitioner has an adequate and afficacious alternative remedy before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the remedy before the Service Tribunal is not adequate and efficacious remedy. In this support he has placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court in Sada Nand Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995) 2 UPLBEC 827. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench in the case of Sada Nand Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Supra) has not laid down that the remedy before the Service Tribunal is not adequate and efficacious remedy. In paragraph 32 of the said judgment, the Bench has interfered with the order impugned therein view of the "peculiar facts" of that case The remedy before the Service Tribunal is efficacious alternative remedy and it has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Labh Chand AIR 1994 SC 754. After analysing the provision of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, the Supreme Court held as under :
"9. When a Statutory Forum of Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressel of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by intertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legel position which is too well settled."
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"15. As is seen from the said preamble, the provisions in the Act and the Rules, the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is intended to be an exclusive and exhaustive machinery or forum for adjudication of claims of all public servants including the persons in the service or pay of the State Government in matters of their employment, inasmuch as, suits in such matters are specifially barred by the provision in Section 6 of the Act. That Tribunal since composes of a Judicial Member who is a serving Judge of the High Court or is qualified to become such Judge and an Administrative Member who holds or has held the post of, or any post equivalent to Commissioner of a Division, it is a statutory Tribunal of the State possessed of experties to adjudicate claims of public servants in matters of their employment. That the Tribunal is its enquiries being not bound by the technical rules of procedure under the Civil procedure Code and the technical rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, it could avail of its vast powers of enquiry to redress grievances of public servants concerning matters of their employment adequately and efficaciously. The fact that Section 4 of the Act declares that the decision of the Tribunal is final subject to the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution itself shows the nature of high judicial sanctity attached by statute to such decisions."
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground to alternative remedy.