HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.88 of 2008 (S/B) Dr. Anil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents Dated : December 1st 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. 2. There is a post of Lecturer Anaesthetist. Notifications/advertisements had been published on 3rd March, 2008 and on 26th April, 2008 for selecting a suitable candidate to be appointed on contractual basis as Lecturer Anaesthetist. In the notifications/advertisements, it had been stated that the existing Government employees shall not be eligible to respond to the said notifications/advertisements. Petitioner has necessary qualifications for being appointed as Lecturer Anaesthetist. He is a Government employee. He has been asked to discharge the duties of Lecturer Anaesthetist. He wants to be adjusted as Lecturer Anaesthetist and accordingly, claims that those 2 notifications/advertisements should not be pursued further. The Government has decided that for the time being the post of Lecturer Anaesthetist shall be supplied by a contractual employee, which shall be a lesser burdened to the State. That is explicit in the notifications/advertisements. An existing Government employee cannot interfere with the said decision of the Government and contend that instead of appointing a Lecturer Anaesthetist on contractual basis, the Government should appoint a Lecturer Anaesthetist on permanent basis, exposing the Government to higher financial obligations. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and the same is dismissed. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.12.2010 Arti