IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 209 of 2009 (S/S) Manav Chandra Mundepi and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and nine others. … Respondents. Mr. B.S.Negi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 20, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies of Patwari/Lekhpal in all the districts of Uttarakhand by giving preference to the petitioners, who are unemployed trained Patwari/Lekhpal of 1996 Session. Further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointments to the petitioner on the post of Patwari/Lekhpal has been made. The petitioners claim to have been completed their training as Patwari in the year 1996 but so far no appointment was given to the petitioners on the post of Patwari. It appears that a Writ Petition No. 38584 of 1997 was filed before the Allahabad High Court wherein respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioners within two months by order dated 20-11-1997. The representation of the petitioners was also rejected. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have completed their Patwari training in the year 1996 but since then they were not given appointment, while some others who also completed the training were appointed. 2 Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents and the averments made in the writ petition have been denied. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stood resolved by order dated 26-6-2008 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 590 of 2002, Moti Lal and 8 others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 26-6-2008 and a direction may be given to the respondent no.10 to consider the case of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents- State has fairly conceded that in WPSS No. 590 of 2002 similar controversy was involved. I have perused the order dated 26-6-2008 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 590 of 2002, Moti Lal and 8 others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost similar to that of the W.P.S.S. No. 590 of 2002. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 26-6-2008. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 26-6-2008 passed in WPSS No. 590 of 2002, Moti Lal and 8 others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. Accordingly, the Collector Dehradun is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Government Order dated 30-4-2007 for appointment on the post of Patwari/Lekhpal, if the petitioners are found to have completed the training of Patwari in the year 1996, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP