IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.)No. 1049 of 2008 (M/B) Sohan Lal Goel, Advocate, Children Senior Academy, Campus N.H. 58, Delhi Road, Roorkee, District Haridwar. ……. Petitioner Versus (1) State of Uttarakhand, through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat. (2) Principal Secretary Health, Ayush & Social Welfare Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. (3) Director Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. (4) Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar, through its Secretary. ………… Respondents. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. [Oral – Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] By means of this writ petition, filed in the from of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has sought quashing of Government order dared 12.12.2008, copy annexure 9 to the writ petition, Further, a mandamus has been sought to initiate appropriate action against the respondent no. 2. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed this petition stating that there are two Ayurvedic Colleges, namely, Government Ayurvedic Rishikul Post Graduate College and Government Gurukul Kangri Ayurvedic College in the State, which are imparting Ayurvedic Medical Education for last more than 75 years in Haridwar. It is further stated that no regular appointments of Lecturers, Readers and Professors have been made in the institutes. The petitioner’s grievance is that the faculty of the institutes is being run by the persons appointed on contractual basis and by the impugned Government Order dated 12th December 2008, the Government has given ad hoc appointment to the members of the faculty who were on contractual basis. Hence, the petition. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show us the public interest involved in the petition. The petitioner has not dared to implead the affected parties. Apart from this, in the service matters, general direction to the authorities concerned in Public Interest Litigation are not desired nor called for. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we find the petition devoid of merits. The writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) is dismissed summarily. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 12.02.2009 NS