- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order directing the petitioner to be put on his substantive post hits Art, 16 of the Constitution. If it does so, the petitioner can seek his remedy by way of a reference under the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Ordinance, 1966 Clause (a) of S. 4 specifically provides remedy in case a Government servant complains of violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal has also the power to pass interim orders. The petitioner has thus an adequate alternative remedy, before a Tribunal specially constituted for the purpose. In the circumstances, it would not be just and proper to exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel contended that the petition be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the Tribunal. He has not been able to show any provision of law under which we can make such direction. The only provision under the Code of Civil Procedure is contained in R. 10 of Order VII which provides: "10 (1) The plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. (2) On returning the plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it."
(2.) A petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution can be presented only in the High Court and cannot be presented or [instituted in the Tribunal. The memo of petition accordingly cannot be returned.
(3.) For the reasons given above, the petition is dismissed.;