IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1198 of 2007 Ramesh Singh S/O Shri Madan Singh and others. … Petitioners. Vs. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewaiyn, Uttarakhand and another. …Respondents. Mr.Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 29, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Recall Application No. 591/2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 6119/2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this application (No. 591 of 2010), the petitioners have sought recall of the order dated 16-9-2008 passed by this Court, whereby the petitioners were relegated to avail the alternative remedy before the State Public Service Tribunal in view of the case Bhuvan Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [2006(2) U.D., 439] and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The recall application has been moved by the applicant- petitioners on the ground that some other writ petitions involving similar controversy have been decided by this Court. The petitioners have also alleged that after passing of the order dated 16-9-2008, they could not approach the Tribunal on account of financial crisis, as mentioned in paragraph no.7 filed in support of the recall application. The applicants have also filed an application for condonation of delay in moving the recall application, which is also supported by an affidavit, which is duly sworn in by petitioner no.3 Darwan Singh. Grounds stated in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay in moving the recall application. 2 Delay is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the recall application moved by the petitioners is allowed. The recall application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 16-9-2008 is hereby recalled. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 13-8-2007 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 23-7-2007 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively). By the order dated 13-8-2007, the appointments of the petitioners were dispensed with under the orders of the respondent no.1. The petitioners claim to have been initially engaged as part-time servants on fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 40/- in different Government Ayurvedic Hospitals. They also claim that pursuant to the Government Order dated 26-6-2003 the respondent no. 1 issued directions on 28-8-2003 to the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer Bageshwar to adjust the part time servants in the department. Ultimately, the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts of Class IV employees as full time Sewak/Chaukidar in the Government Ayurvedic Hospitals of the district. The grievance of the petitioners is that the appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled without assigning any reason in an arbitrary manner and against the principles of natural justice. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and therein it is stated that the appointments of the petitioners were found to be illegal and irregular de hors the Rules. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others, which was upheld by a Division 3 Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal NO. 112 of 2010, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, decided on 7-7-2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that this writ petition may be decided in terms of the order dated 26-11- 2009 passed by this Court in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others which has been confirmed in aforesaid Special Appeal by the Division Bench of this Court. 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 W.P.S.S. 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 26-11-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) 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 7-7-2010 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 order dated 26-11- 2009 passed in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. The impugned orders passed against the petitioners are quashed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP