Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) The Special Appeal has been preferred in respect of a judgment and order dated 7th January, 2020, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ - A No.-19882 of 2019 (Dr. Smt. Abha Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 others). By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition purely on the ground of alternative remedy.
(2.) This Special Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner, namely, Dr. Smt. Abha Sharma.
(3.) For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety:- 'Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.B. Dixit, counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has made a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Vice Chancellor determining the seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents that the statutory alternate remedy of reference under Section 68 of State Universities Act is available to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is contended by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been senior to respondent no. 6 since 1996 and no objection has been raised by respondents in the seniority list published subsequent to 1996 by the respondents. Thus, the submission is that long standing seniority cannot be disturbed in view of the settled principle of law. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC 474 and Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 825 of 2004 (Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Anr.). Be that as it may, the petitioner has statutory remedy of reference under Section 68 of the State Universities Act, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage as the contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner can very well be seen by the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. Thus, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.';