COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3764/2001 (Old No. 22594/1996) Ratna Mistri …….Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal & Other ……Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 8th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.2.1996 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. Petitioner was duly selected and was temporarily appointed on the post of Collection Amin vide the appointment letter dated 16.5.1989, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Thereafter, on 23.2.1996, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order. Petitioner continuously worked as Collection Amin until his termination. 3. On 31.3.2000, following interim order was passed: “The learned Standing Counsel was granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit by order dated 23.7.1996. No counter affidavit as yet has been filed. The 2 learned Standing Counsel once again prays for further time to file counter affidavit. The petition was filed in 1996 and the counter affidavit has not been filed so far even after about four years. Considering the facts and circumstances in which the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that his services are no more required and also the allegations made in para 8 of the writ petition that a number of Collection Amins, who are junior to the petitioner are still continuing in the department as Collection Amins, I am constrained to make an interim mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Collection Amin in the District, Tehri Garhwal, by making an order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order or show cause.” 4. Petitioner has alleged that juniors to him have been retained, which is clear cut violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petition is of the year 1996 but no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 31.3.2000 quoted above. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.5.2008 Prabodh 3