IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 45 of 2007 (S/B) 1. Dr. Jaiveer Singh Saini S/o Sri Phool Singh, Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Bullawala, Dehradun. 2. Dr. (Smt.) Pratibha Agrawal W/o Dr. Sunil Singhal, Medical Officer (Ayurved ), District Women Hospital, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Health and Medical Education, Dehradun (Uttarakhand). 2. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Secretary, State Reorganization Department, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 4. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Khan Market, New Delhi- 110 003. 5. Director (SR), Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003. 6. Chairman, State Advisory Committee, Gate No. 31, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003. 7. Principal Secretary, U.P. Reorganization Co-ordination Department / Member Secretary, State Advisory Committee, Section-I, U.P. Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Lucknow (U.P.). 8. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P., Lucknow. 9. Secretary, Medical Education, Vikas Bhawan, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. ………… Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondents Nos. 7 to 9. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondents Nos. 7 to 9. 2. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioners, with a view to seek quashing of the allocation list, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty of filing another properly drafted writ petition. 3. Permission granted. 4. With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 03.04.2007 03.04.2007 G