IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 299 of 2018 (S/B) Bhagwat Kishore Mishra & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 187 of 2010 (S/B) Hansa Dutt & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 188 of 2010 (S/B) Narendra Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus Chief Secretary Govt. of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 220 of 2010 (S/B) Bhagwat Kishore Mishra …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 58 of 2011 (S/B) Harak Singh Rawat & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent nos.3 to 20. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondent nos.7 and 15. Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent nos.6, 17, 18 and 19. Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no.12. Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. The information furnished by the respondents is inadequate. As against the 70 sanctioned post of Deputy Collectors in 2000 (35 direct recruitees and 35 promotees), only 67 Deputy Collectors were finally allocated to State of Uttarakhand albeit from 2003 till 2015. Out of 70 persons, whom the State Advisory Committee recommended for final allocation to the State of Uttarakhand, the Central Government only 2 allocated 67 persons. As to why the other three were not allocated is not known nor is it clear from the counter-affidavit as to who those three individuals are. 2. It is stated that the reason for the delay in final allotment of these employees is because Writ Petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court, and interim order was passed in the year 2003. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, would submit that most of the Writ Petitions were dismissed in the year 2003 itself. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents, would submit that, against the dismissal order passed by the Allahabad High Court, these employees had approached the Supreme Court; initially an order of status quo was passed; thereafter the SLPs’ were eventually dismissed; and the interim order granted earlier was vacated in the year 2015. 3. The table placed before us indicates that 18 Deputy Collectors (promotees), and 11 Deputy Collectors (direct recruitees), allocated to the State of Uttarakhand did not join, purportedly in view of the interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court. 4. It is not known when the Writ Petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court by these 29 individuals were dismissed, when they approached the Supreme Court, when an interim order of status quo was passed, and as to when the SLPs were finally dismissed by the Supreme Court. This information is necessary for us to examine whether the State of Uttarakhand was disabled from asking these Deputy Collectors to join duty because of orders passed by Courts. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General, would request a week’s time to furnish the aforesaid information, and to clarify these aspects. 5. Post on 29.04.2019. 3 6. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 22.04.2019. (N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.) 22.04.2019 22.04.2019 NISHANT