IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 174 of 2008 Rakesh Chandra Purohit ………….. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, 4 & 5. Ms. Beena Pande, Advocate for respondent No.6. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, Judge Date of Decision : 14.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) We quash the final allocation list in so far as the same is applicable to the petitioner and direct the State Advisory Committee to once again discharge its duty of considering the option of the petitioner and thereupon to allocate him, an employee of State of Uttar Pradesh, to the State of Uttarakhand, if possible, in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 and the guidelines framed by the Union of India. We are constrained to pass this order, inasmuch as, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had given a conditional option and, therefore, his option was rejected. The petitioner has brought on record the option given by one Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, who has been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The words used in the option against column No.11 by the petitioner are identical to the words used by Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma against column No.11 of his option form. The Advisory Committee is directed to discharge its obligations in terms of this order within a period of three months from today. The Central Government is directed to forthwith, but not later than one month from the date of 2 recommendation of the Advisory Committee, publish the final allocation of the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( Nirmal Yadav, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 14.12.2010 P. Singh