Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mallan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 49513 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3842 (7 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Case called out again in the reviseed list. No one has turned up on behalf of the petitioners to prosecute the case. Heard Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Case of the petitioner is that against order of reversion they preferred Civil Misc Writ Petition Nos. 78848 of 2005 and 78855 of 2005, which were dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6.1.2006 directing the petitioners to file representations before Nagar Ayukta Varanasi to be considered and decided by him within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representations. Their grievance is that the Nagar Ayukta Varanasi has by order dated 7.4.2006 directed for preparation of seniority list but they have not been promoted compelling them yet again to move another representation dated 12.4.2006 which too has met with no response as sycg the petitionres, they have invoked writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

Whether non-promotion of the petitioners after preparation of seniority list  suffers from any error of fact or law require appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for this Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution and such questions can only be decided after consideration of  oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties.  

  It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.

The petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as held in Chandrama Singh V. Managing Director U.P.Co-operative Union Lucknow and others- (1991)1UPLBEC(2)-898.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.   No order as to costs.

Dated 7.3.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.