S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is holding the post of Information Officer under the State Government has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Government, if any, for further re - employment, of opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 to the post of Deputy Director Information. A mandamus has also been claimed to command the State of U.P. to forbear from granting further extension or re employment to the said opposite parties. The petitioner's claim is that the post of Deputy Director Information is required to be filled by promotion for which he is eligible. A question arose whether the petitioner has a remedy available under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 or not. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the remedy is not available as a petition in respect of employment cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. The further submission is that the petitioner challenges the re -employment of opposite parties 2 to 6 to the post of Deputy Director of Information and the term "employment" includes the term "re -employment" and therefore the present dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
(2.) SECTION 4 of the aforesaid Act reads as follows. 4. If any person who is or has been a public servant claims that in any matter relating to employment as such public servant his employer or any officer or authority subordinate to the employer has dealt with him in a manner which is not in conformity with any contract, or - - (a) in the case of a Government servant with the provisions of Article 16 or Article 311 of the Constitution or with any rules or law having force under Article 309 or Article 313 of the Constitution. (b)................... he shall refer such claim to the Tribunal, and the decision of the Tribunal, thereon shall, subject to the provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution, be final. The ambit of the above provision is very wide. A Government servant can approach, the Tribunal if his claim is that his employer has committed breach of the terms of employment. He can also approach the Tribunal if his claim is that the employer has, in dealing with him, committed breach of Articles 16, 311 or of any rule or a law. This comprehends in its sweep almost the entire range of service disputes. Of course, a person who neither is nor has been a Government servant cannot approach the Tribunal. This flows from the opening sentence of Section which reads "if any person who is or has been". In view of this position a person who neither is, nor has been a Government servant, cannot approach the Tribunal seeking the relief of direction to the State Government to grant him employment. To this limited extent the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that dispute regarding employment to a post is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. But the further submission that the bar of jurisdiction will extend to dispute relating to "re -employment' as the term 'employment" includes the term "re -employment" cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that once a person has been employed, he falls in the category of has been a public servant even if he ceases to be in public employment subsequently. Thus, not only the petitioner is entitled to approach the Tribunal to challenge the employment or threatened or apprehended re -employment of opposite parties 2 to 6, the said opposite parties also will be entitled to approach the Tribunal if on the expiry of their present -period of employment, they fail to get re -employment and their grievance falls within the scope of Section 4. Thus, neither with reference to the petitioner nor with reference to opposite parties 2 to 6 it can be said that the Tribunal is incompetent to entertain dispute of the nature raised by the petitioner.
(3.) IT may also be pointed out that under Section 4, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is to be determined with reference to the position of the claim -ant before the Tribunal and not with reference to the position of the respondent or opposite party. Thus, it is permissible for a person who is or has been a public servant to maintain a claim before the Tribunal to challenge the employment of a person who has not yet become a public servant, although a prospective public servant will not be entitled to approach the Tribunal. Thus, a claim petition at the instance of a person who is or has been a public servant will not become, incompetent on the ground that some of the respondents, neither are nor have been public servants. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy before the Tribunal -, the petition is dismissed.;