IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 167 of 2007 (S/B) Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..…. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, learned Addl. C.S.C. (U.P.) for respondent No. 5. None for respondent Nos. 4 & 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, learned Addl. C.S.C. (U.P.) for respondent No. 5. None for respondent Nos. 4 & 6. 2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for seeking the allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit on 15/04/2008 in which it has been stated that the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand by the Union of India vide order dated 24.03.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that in view of the averment made in the supplementary affidavit, the writ petition has become infructuous as the relief sought in the writ petition for quashing the allocation relating to the petitioner has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioner has already been relieved for State of U.P. and thus the relief No.2 sought by the writ petitioner has also become infructuous. 4. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been given posting in the State of Uttarakhand though they have been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that the petitioner has not been allowed to join in the State of Uttarakhand even after the reallocation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty that in case they are not allowed to join in the State of Uttarakhand in pursuance of the order of the Central Government, the petitioner may file fresh writ petition before the court. 5. Permission is granted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty. 7. Consequently, the IA No. 1672 of 2007 stands disposed of. (Dharam Veer, J.) (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 17.04.2008 17.04.2008 Shiv