HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.734 of 2006 (S/S) Ram Pal Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ...Respondents Mr. Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no.3. Dated : December 27th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In the tentative list prepared by the Central Government, petitioner was shown to have been tentatively allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Subsequent thereto, admittedly, petitioner was not noticed by any authority. At the same time it is not anybody’s contention that petitioner altered his option for Uttarakhand. However, surprisingly, when the final allocation list was made public, the name of petitioner did not feature in the final allocation list for the State of Uttarakhand. That forced petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. On the writ petition, an interim order was passed, prima facie holding that non inclusion of petitioner in the final list appears to be inappropriate and without sanction of law and, accordingly, an interim order was passed staying steps to be taken by the State of Uttarakhand for relieving petitioner for the purpose of joining State of Uttarakhand. The Court directed the 2 Central Government to disclose the reason for non inclusion of the name of petitioner in the final allocation list for the State of Uttarakhand. The Central Government in its counter affidavit has stated that in the final allocation list one Sri Mangeram Saini was allocated in place of petitioner based on the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee but, however, the recommendation did not give any reason for replacing petitioner by Sri Mangeram Saini. In the agenda of the meeting, where the aforementioned replacement took place, it was stated that the proposed replacement has the approval of the Government of Uttarakhand, and that the comments of the Administrative Department in this regard seems to be in order. It is not the case of the State, nor it is the case of the Central Government that before approval of the Government of Uttarakhand was granted for the replacement, petitioner was noticed. Therefore, the conclusion would be, while duly and correctly petitioner’s name was reflected in the tentative list, his name was omitted from the final list because petitioner was replaced by one Sri Mangeram Saini at the instance of the Government of Uttarakhand behind the back of petitioner. We accordingly, hold that the name of petitioner features in the final allocation list for the State of Uttarakhand as there is no just reason to discard the name of petitioner from final allocation list and accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with the said declaration and by affirming the interim order. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.12.2010 Arti 3