Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) A preliminary objection has been raised to maintainability of this writ petition on behalf of opposite-parties by the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties Dr. Ashok Nigam, Advocate who has accepted the notice of the petition on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The learned Counsel for opposite-parties has contended that petition has got alternative remedy to approach the U. P. Public Service Tribunal and the petitions, as such, be rejected and dismissed. The learned Counsel for the opposite-parties has referred to Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 896. Shri R.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner contested and refuted and replied the above contentions and submitted that present is the case in which the orders impugned have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice so alternative remedy is no bar and the decision of Chandarama Singh's case does not apply and so the petition is as such maintainable and the preliminary objection need be rejected.
(2.) Having heard the contentions of learned Counsel as desired as well by the learned Counsels I propose to decide and dispose of the pro posed preliminary objection.
(3.) In the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 896 vide para 13 the Full Bench of this Court has laid it down as under: "The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court noted down lead to an irresistible conclusion that the High Court must not allow' its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be involved the petitioner has got an alternative remedy and such remedy is not pleaded and proved to be inadequate or inefficacious or it is not established from the material on record that there exist exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances to deviate from the well settled normal rule of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy and permit him to by-pass the alternative remedy. The hurdle of alternative remedy cannot be allowed to be skipped over lightly on a casual and bold statement in the petition that "there is no other equally efficacious or adequate alternative remedy than to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The petitioner must furnish material facts and particulars to sustain such a plea.";