IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1104 (S/S) of 2010 Balram Singh S/o Sri Daya Shankar Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondents Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri S.C. Dumka, Brief Holder on behalf of State. Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri S.C. Dumka, Brief Holder on behalf of State and Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate for respondent No.2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Government Orders dated 30-11-2008, 09-08-2010 and 25-10-2010 contained in Annexure Nos. 6,8 and 9 respectively to the writ petition. According to petitioner his service is governed by U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The controversy arose when joint seniority list (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), of the persons, who were serving in Special Area Development Authority ( in short ‘SADA’), was prepared. Thereafter that order was recalled by the State Government vide order dated 8-8-2010 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition), on the representation made by one Sri Mahipal Singh Adhikari, who was serving in SADA. Similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 889 (S/S) of 2003, wherein the direction was given to the SADA to consider the name of Sri Jitendra Prasad Dabral under the provision of SADA Act to be considered on the post of Junior Engineer in SADA as two posts of J.E. have been sanctioned by the State Government in SADA. In the case at hand according to petitioner under Development Authority there is 5% quota of Surveyors and Draftsman to be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer. Since in view of court’s order, passed in connected 2 W.P. No. 889(S/S) of 2003 dated 15-07-2013 the petitioner in that petition, has to be considered for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer under SADA Act, therefore, now the petitioner Balram Singh, should also be considered for promotion under the Urban Planning and Development Act and Rules framed there-under. The impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent-State is directed to consider the petitioner for his promotion on the post of J.E. under the Urban Planning and Development Act and Rules framed there-under. ISB (B.S. Verma, J.) 16-07-2013