Narain Dutt Ojha, J. - (1.) SINCE in these two writ petitions a common question is involved whether these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are maintainable even though the petitioner in each of these petitions has an alternative remedy of making a reference to the Public Services Tribunal (for Short Tribunal) constituted under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the orders impugned in these petitions, they are being decided by a common order. The petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 14702 of 1983 has been reverted from the Officiating post of a Supervisor Kanungo to the post of Lekhpal and he has prayed for quashing this order of reversion on the ground that in the background in which this order was passed it amounts to punishment and no opportunity of showing cause having been given to him before passing this order it violates Article 311 of the Constitution. It has also been asserted that juniors to the petitioner have not been reverted and as such the impugned order violates Article 16 also of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14703 of 1983 on the other hand was a temporary Government Servant and his services have been terminated on the ground that they were no longer needed. He has sought the quashing of this order on the ground that services of other temporary employees junior to him have not been terminated and as such the impugned order violates Article 16 of the Constitution. That the petitioner in each case is a public servant within the meaning of the said term as defined in the Act has not been disputed nor has it been disputed that the relief of setting aside the order impugned in each of the two petitions can be granted by the Tribunal. The petitioners have, therefore, an alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal for the relief sought for by them in these petitions.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners, however, have urged that these writ petitions still deserve to be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the following three grounds: (1) the alternative remedy before the Tribunal is not speedy and normally considerable delay takes place in disposal of cases by the Tribunal. (2) the Tribunal in view of Section (5B) of the Act is not content to grant any interim relief in cases of the nature specified therein. (3) Since the impugned orders have been passed in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 16 and also in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution existence of an alternative remedy was no bar to the maintainability of these writ petitions.;