IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 180 of 2007 (S/B) Khajan Singh s/o Prem Singh Presntly working as Van Kshetradhikari, Shivalik Range, Dehradun ......... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Dehradun. 2. Chief Forest Conservator, Administration Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Kalsi Dehradun. 4. Union of India, Ministry of Pension and Public Grievances, New Delhi. 5. Chief Secretary, Forest Departmennt, U.P. Lucknow ...... Respondents ............. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upaadhayaya Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondent no.4. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. J.C.S. Rawat, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, summoning the records and quashing the order dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure – 2) and order dated 31.03.2007 (Annexure – 5) b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to disturb the functioning of the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand during the pendency of present writ petition. c. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the Circumstances of the case. d. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that the petitioner had been working as Forest Range Officer in Uttarakhand since 1997 and he opted for Hill Sub-Cadre in the year 1997. The similarly situated other officials were allocated to Hill Sub-Cadre. Thereafter, the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was created on 9th November, 2000 and the petitioner had not given any option for Uttarakhand or the State of U.P. as he had already submitted his option for Hill Sub-Cadre of Uttarakhand. 3. The petitioner was allocated to the State of U.P. vide order dated 13.07.2004. Consequently, the order was passed to relieve him from the State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter, he was not relieved and his relieving was stayed for the time being. The competent authority again passed an order dated 31.03.2007 to relieve the petitioner from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner gave his option in the year 1997 for Hill Sub- Cadre and so he is a member of the Hill Cadre. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that no order has been passed allocating the petitioner to Hill Sub- Cadre of Uttarakhand. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate us that the petitioner had been allocated to the Hill Sub-Cadre of Uttarakhand. Thus, the petitioner, at no point of time, was allocated for the Hill Sub-Cadre. As such, he has no right to have been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. 7. The petitioner had been allocated to the State of U.P. vide order dated 13.07.2004. The petitioner has challenged only the order of relieving, which was passed in consequence of the order of allocation made on 13.07.2004. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13.07.2004 relieving the petitioner to the State of U.P. As such, the petitioner cannot claim that he should not be relieved from the state of Uttarakhand to the State of U.P. 8. Furthermore, he had never submitted his option for the State of Uttarakhand after the creation of the State. As such, he cannot be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The order passed by the competent authority to relieve him for the State of U.P. is justified and we do not find any ground for interference in the order. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 10. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 13.2.2008 13.02.2008 A