IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No.6496 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.656 of 2010 (S/S) Kaviraj Mehta S/o Sri Mangal Singh Mehta, R/o Village- Chakhni Post Office- Chakhni, District Bageshwar. ……Petitioner. Versus Director, Ayurvedic and Yunani Services, Uttarakhand, Shastri Nagar, Lane No.3, Haridwar Road, Dehradun and another. ….Respondents. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. 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 for quashing the impugned termination order dated 13-08-2007, issued by the respondent No.2, annexed as annexure No.6 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Class IV employee on part time basis and subsequently the petitioner was absorbed by an order dated 18-12-2005/21-12-2005(Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) by the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Bageshwar in the regular pay scale as full time employee. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, District Bageshwar by his order impugned dated 13-08-2008 has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and the services were terminated with immediate effect without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26-11-2009 rendered by this Court in WPSS No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and 2 others Vs. State and others, which was upheld by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Special Appeal No. 112 of 2010, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, decided on 07- 07-2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this writ petition may be decided in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 26-11-2009 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others and that the order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld in the Special Appeal. I have perused the order dated 26-11-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1103 of 2008. Controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical in nature to that of the WPSS No. 1103 of 2008. I have also gone through the order dated 07-07-2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 112 of 2010 thereby the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has been upheld. 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 the order dated 26-11-2009 passed in WPSS No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. The impugned order dated 13-08-2007 (Annexure No.2 to the petition) passed against the petitioner is quashed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) 06-08-2010 MK