IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 1068 of 2011 Mohan Lal Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner is presently challenging the order dated 30.7.2011 by which the earlier promotion/adjustment given to the petitioner was cancelled. 3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, and the pleadings are complete. All the same, during the pendency of the writ petition, it is an admitted case that the said order dated 30.7.2011 was stayed by the Secretary, Rural Development, Dehradun vide order dated 12.9.2011 holding that the order dated 30.7.2011 was passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. Since it is an admitted case of the respondents that the impugned order dated 30.7.2011 was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and fair play, it would meet the ends of justice if the said order be quashed. Impugned order dated 30.7.2011 is therefore quashed. Writ petition is allowed though liberty is given to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after compliance of principle of natural justice 2 and fair play. Needful be done within a period of three months from today. It is further directed that the petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings. In case the petitioner does not cooperate, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. 5. With the observations made above, writ petition is disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.11.2011 Avneet