IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 52 (S/S) of 2008 Smt. Pushpa W/o Sri Adtar Singh Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun District Dehradun. ….....Petitioner. Versus State and others. .……….Respondents. Shri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1,2 and 6. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3 Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated November 2007, passed by Government of India, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dehradun. It is also admitted between the parties that she has been allocated State of U.P. by Government of India under Section 73 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 322 (S/S) of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 26.04.2007, directing the competent authority to consider the representation of the 2 petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected vide impugned order, challenged in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointing authority of the petitioner is a District level Officer and the petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand vide Government Order dated 11.09.2001. However, this Court does not find force in the argument for the reason that no appointment letter has been filed with the writ petition showing that the appointing authority of the petitioner is District Level Officer. 5. The impugned order shows that the option given by the petitioner was State of U.P., as such, now she cannot be allocated State of Uttarakhand. It is not disputed between the parties that initially petitioner gave her option for the State of U.P. on 01.10.2000 and later on, she changed and opted on 01.12.2000, for State of Uttarakhand. Her husband is also working as Registrar Clerk and he has also opted for State of U.P. on 03.10.2000 and has changed option on 12.07.2001, for State of Uttarakhand. Both of them are allocated State of Uttar Pradesh and at present working at Dehradun (Uttarakhand). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are vacancies in State of Uttarakhand and other persons are permitted to change their option as such, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. However, as there is no illegality in the impugned order, mere fact that 3 vacancies are in the particular State or some one has been permitted to change option does not give right to the petitioner to get her reallocated the State. The fact that letter dated 20.03.2007, is not mentioned in the impugned order does not mean that the same is not considered. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Government of India, affirming allocation to the State of Uttar Pradesh to the petitioner and her husband. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 1515 of 2008, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 07.04.2008 Sweta