IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2007 (S/S) Sharad Singh S/O Sri Sham Singh and 22 others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Ayurvedic and Unnani Medicine, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Sandeep Kothari Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.P.Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date July 14, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned D.O. Letter No. 178/-/2007 D.Dun dated 12.7.2007 and consequential order dated 23.7.2007 bearing no. 187/2002/3814-3819 passed by respondent no. 2 and consequential termination orders dated 7.8.2007 passed in respect of petitioners by respondent no.3. 2. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of present case. 3. To award the cost of present writ petition in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they were selected and recruited by a duly constituted selection committee as class IV employees by the appointing authority, i.e. District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer Tehri Garhwal and they were having essential and requisite qualification as required for Class IV post. The petitioners 2 were appointed in the year 2005 except petitioner no. 18 Vijendra Pandey, who was appointed in the year 2003. According to the petitioners, by order dated 7-8-2007 the respondent no. 3 has held the appointments of the petitioners as illegal, while as many as 23 other similarly situated other persons were absorbed in the regular services of the department and they are continuing in the service. The main ground of challenge raised in the present writ petition is that the order of termination of services has not been passed by the appointing authority i.e. District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer but the same has been passed on the directions contained in a D.O. letter dated 12-7-2007 and the consequent order dated 23-7-2007 passed by the Director-respondent no.2, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed being violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the resp0ondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioners were appointed by the then District Ayurvedic & Unani Officer, Tehri Garhwal without adopting due process of law. It is also stated that a departmental enquiry is pending against the concerned District Ayurvedic & Unani Officer, Tehri Garhwal and clerks concerned before the Government. It is also stated that the appointments were given to the petitioners de hors the process of selection. On behalf of the petitioners, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 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 Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal NO. 3 112 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