IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 565(S/S)2007 Amrish Kumar Dargarh S/o Late Raj Bahadur, Presently serving as A.S.I.(M), 46 Battalion, P.A.C., Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. ----- Petitioner. Vs. 1. Union of India through its Chairman, Central State Advisory Committee, Gate No. 31, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, 2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, (Deptt. Of Personnel and Training), Govt. of India. Loknayak Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003, 3. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun, 4. Director General of Police Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun, 5. Addl. Director General of Police (Administration), Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 6. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow, 7. Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow, 8. Commandant, 46 Battalion, P.A.C., Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. ------ Respondents. Sir Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sir H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 34.5 & 8, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Staning Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 6 & 7. None is present for Union of India/respondent nos. 1 &2. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 3,4,5 & 8 and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondents nos. 6 & 7. None is present for Union of India/respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2 By means of this writ petition`, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 06.05.2007 (annexure-1) passed by respondent no. 4, ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to finally allocate the petitioner for Uttarakhand Cadre with all consequential benefits, iii. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, iv. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in 46th Battalion, P.A.C. Rudrapur has sought relief from the Court directing the respondents not to relieve him for State of U.P. in pursuance of the impugned order dated 6th May 2007. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petition is a permanent resident of State of Uttar Pradesh; he has opted for State of Uttar Pradesh and has been finally allocated by the Union of India for State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 6th May 2007. The sole ground of assailing the impugned order is that petitioner’s children are studying at Rudrapur and, in case, he is relieved from there, the study of his children will be affected adversely. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 3 perusing of the order impugned, I do not find any ground, which warrants interference of this Court in the impugned order dated 6th May 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already made representation before the Govt. for redressal of his grievances. Hence, the respondents are expected that they well take decision on the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. However, since the petitioner has opted for State of Uttar Pradesh and in turn; the Union of India has finally allocated him to the State of Uttar Pradesh, I am not inclined to restrain the respondents not to relieve the petitioner for State of Uttar Pradesh. The petition lacks merit, as such, is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) May 22, 2007: NCM: