IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 642(S/S)2007 Nagendra Prasad Joshi S/o late Sri Mohan Lal Joshi, R/o village Kolinda (Jaikot), P.O. Ghiroli, Patti Kholagarh Bolck Pokhra, Tehsil Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal. --- Petitioner. Vs. 1. Union of India through its Chairman, State Advisory Committee Gate No. 3, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium Lodhi Road, New Delhi, 2. Director (S.R.), Union of India, Karmik Lok Shiksha Avam Pension Ministry of Karmik Avam Prashikshan III Floor, Lok Nayak Marg, Khan Market, New Delhi, 3. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, State Recorgnization Department, Uttarakhand, Shasan, Dehradun, 4. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Uttarakhand, Shasan, Dehradun, 5. Director Ayurvedic Avam Unani Sewayen, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 6. Reorganization Commission, Uttaranchal Shasan, Vikas Bhawan, Lucknow, (U.P.), 7. State of Uttara Pradesh through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow, 8. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, State Reorganization Department, Uttar Pradesh, Shasan, Lucknow, 9. Director, Ayurvedic Avam Unani Sewayen, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. -----Respondents. Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned State Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 3,4 & 5, and Sri S.P.S. Panwar, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 6 to 9. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sir Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for 2 Union of India/respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned State Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 3,4 & 5, and Sri S.P.S. Panwar, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 6 to 9. Stand of petitioner is that he is permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand and prior to creation of State of Uttarakhand, he was working in the hill district of the then State of U.P. which is now within the jurisdiction of State of Uttarakhand. According to the policy laid down by the Union of India, the persons who were appointed and were working in the hilly districts of the then State of Uttar Pradesh, prior to creation of State of Uttarakhand have temporarily finally been allocated for State of Uttarakhand, provided their appointment was for hill districts only. In the tentative final allocation list prepared by Union of India, the name of the petitioner does not find figure, consequently the petitioner moved representation on 21th September 2004 raising objections, however without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of U.P. In pursuance to the order passed by Union of India the petitioner has now been relieved for State of U.P. vide order dated 15.05.2007 passed by the State of Uttarakhand. In these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to direct the petitioner to make representation before the concerned authority, raising his objections, and it is expected from the authorities concerned that they shall take decision on the representation of the petitioner at an earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of a representation. 3 With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as the costs. (M.M. Childiyal, J.) June 8, 2007: NCM: