COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1629/2003 (Old No. 1945/2000) Bhagwati Prasad Bhatt, S/o Sri Lalita Prasad Bhatt, R/o Rajkiya Dairy Farm, Kalsi Colony, Kalsi, Dehradun. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of U.P., Through Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow. 3. Farm Manager, Govt. Dairy Farm, Kalsi, Dehradun. 4. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Pashu Lok, Rishikesh. 5. Additional Director (Hill), Animal Husbandry, Gopeshwar, Chamoli. .....Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 14th February, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition and has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post and pay him salary regularly. 2. Names from local Employment Exchange were called by the respondent no. 4 in order to fill up the vacancy of Tractor Operator. Name of the petitioner, who was registered under Technical Trade, Fitter along with other candidates was forwarded by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was called for the interview and he appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee on 7.4.1997. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and was appointed as Tractor Operator/Driver by the order dated 11.4.1997. But the services of the petitioner were terminated vide the impugned order dated 6.4.2000 on that ground that the then Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry has made irregular appointments as the procedure was not followed. 3. On perusal it reveals from the record that the Appointing Authority in case of the petitioner is Deputy Director, who has issued the appointment letter to the petitioner. Further, the name of the petitioner was forwarded to the Department by the Employment Exchange in response of the letter dated 29.11.1996 contained as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit and a copy of same was also endorsed to the Farm Manager, Dehradun. Petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand and as per the direction issued by the Government permanent residents should be given priority in employment for such posts and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualifications and learned Standing Counsel could not be able to rebut this contention. At the time of filing the writ petition the operation of the impugned order was stayed by an interim order dated 21.4.2000, which is reproduced as under: “Admit. Notices on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel who prays for and is granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 3. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected after due process of law by the order dated 11.4.97 and the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification as provided under Rule-8 of U.P. Adhinasth Pashupalan (Farm) Sewa Niyamawali, 1993 and the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 307, Shridhar vs. Nagar Palika. In view of the aforesaid facts, operation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 06.4.2000, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-I to the writ petition, is hereby stayed. Opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Tractor Driver.” 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the impugned order dated 06.04.2000 is liable to be quashed and is quashed accordingly. Writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner is already working in terms of the interim order dated 21.4.2000, no separate order is required. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh