1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.234/2010(S/S) Sunil Kumar Mishra and another ………… Petitioners Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Hardwar and others ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State. The petitioners have prayed the following relief; A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restrining the Respondent no.1 from promoting whose ranking in the original list/recommendation has been disturbed by the revised select list/recommendations issued by the Respondent no.1 on 24.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 till final decision in the writ petitions pending before this Hon’ble Court. B. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. C. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, writ petition no. 09(S/B)/2010 and writ petition no. 83(S/S)/2010 are pending consideration. 2 The petitioners in the writ petition claim that they are entitled to be appointed as upper Division Assistants instead of respondent no.3 and 4. In my opinion, the relief claimed in fact is an injunction, which cannot be granted. It has also come on record that the petitioners have filed a writ petition no.106 (S/B)/2009, which is also pending consideration, in relation to the same controversy. Consequently, this court is of the opinion that such relief cannot be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners should either file a stay application in the writ petition, which is pending consideration or file such interim application in the writ petition, which are mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 7.4.2010 Nishant 3