COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1672 (S/S) of 2001 (Old Case No. 2550 of 1998) Mukesh S/o Sri Ram Saran, C/o Smt.Ram Piyari, Telephone Exchange Karanprayag, District-Chamoli ..........Petitioner Versus 1. Kshetriya Aurvedic and Unani Adhikari, Chamoli. 2. Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Hospital Sutaul, District - Chamoli. 3. Director of Ayurvedic & Unani Services U.P., Lucknow. ..............Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State. Dated: 3rd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.07.1997 passed by respondent no. 1 and has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner month to month with back wages. 2. Names of candidates for filling the vacant Class-IV posts in the Government Ayurvedic Hospital Manmati, District Chamoli were called from the Employment Exchange by the respondents. The Employment Exchange in its turn forwarded the names of the suitable candidates including the petitioner. Subsequently, interview was held on 10.07.1995 by the Selection Committee duly constituted for this purpose and the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar. The petitioner joined his duties on 09.08.1995 in pursuance of the appointment letter. But the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order simpliciter on 22.07.1997 which is the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. In spite of several opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed till date rebutting the averments made in the writ petition. The operation of the impugned order has been stayed by an interim order dated 23.01.1998. The petitioner is continuously working since 09.08.1995. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the impugned order of termination deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the termination order dated 22.07.1997 is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner is already working in terms of the interim order, no separate order is required. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma,J.) 03.04.2008 P.Singh