High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Km. Rina v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 12324 of 2007  RD-AH 3939 (8 March 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri George Stephen, counsel for the petitioner, Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record
Case of the petitioner is that her father late Sompal while working as Safai Nayak in Nagar Palika Parishand, Tanda, District Rampur died in harness on 12.7.2005. Her case for compassionate appointment was recommended by respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 18.4.2006. She was appointed on ground ''D' post and in compliance of appointment order dated 22.1.2007, she joined under protest.
Her grievance is that she is entitled for appointment on group'C' post as per her academic qualifications but the respondents are not appointing her on group ''C' post despite her repeated entreaties.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of instant writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that District Magistrate Rampur has already recommended the name for compassionate appointment in Group ''C' post. If this is true, before approaching this Court, the petitioner should have moved representation before the District Magistrate to ensure compliance of his recommendation which was made to respondent no. 4 who is inferior in rank than the District Magistrate.
Be that as it may, normally questions of facts, which requires 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 in every case as to whether impugned order appointing the petitioner on group ''D' post suffers from any error of fact. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to get the dispute adjudicated on facts by cogent oral and documentary evidence.
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 petitioner has 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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.