THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1021 of 2007. Yashpal Singh S/O Sri Kundan Singh serving as Sewak, Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Kwasi, Tehsil Chakrata, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewaiyn, Uttarakhand, Shastri Nagar, Lane No. 3, Haridwar Road, Dehradun. 2. District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 22, 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 certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27- 7-2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 and also the order dated 23-7- 2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 12 and 14 respectively to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, prior to 1990, in the department of Ayurvedic and Unani Sewaiyn, part time servants were being appointed/engaged on fixed honorarium of Rs. 20/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 40/- per month. Later-on, the Government of Uttarakhand issued a Government Order dated 13-3- 2003 whereby inter alia 80 post of ward-boy and 80 posts of Sweeper cum Chaukidar were created in Class IV category and it was mentioned that they shall be paid consolidated salary. By another G.O. dated 16-9-2005, it was directed that the incumbents appointed as 2 per G.O. dated 13-3-2003 shall be paid fixed amount of Rs. 4000/- per month. The petitioner claims that the Government of Uttarakhand issued certain other Governments wherein it was provided that the vacant posts in Class IV category would be filled up by appointing part-time servants already working in the department. The petitioner joined duties kin Government Ayurvedic Hospital Kwasi Tehsil Chakrata (Dehradun) in pursuant to the appointment letter dated 24-2- 2006 issued by the respondent no.2. The grievance of the petitioner is the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without assigning any reason vide order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the respondent no.2. The petitioner was not heard at any stage while cancelling his appointment letter, therefore, the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stood resolved by the judgment and order dated 26-11-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2007(S/S) Sharad Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has also been decided in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009 by this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition be also allowed in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009 passed in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the State appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded to the above fact. 3 I am also of the view that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost similar to the controversy involved in W.P.S.S. No. 1187 of 2007 and W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008. In the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009. The writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 26-11- 2009 passed in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. The impugned orders passed against the petitioners are quashed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP