IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1836 (S/B) 2002 Rishipal Singh S/o Sri Swaroop Singh Rana, Resident of 14 Bigha, Dalwala, District Tehri Garhwal. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 2. Gram Vikas Aayukt (Forest & Village Development Commissioner), Uttaranchal, Pauri, 3. District Development Officer, Tehri Garhwal, 4. Principal, Regional Village Development Institute, Pauri, 5. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Gram Vikas Secretariat, Lucknow. ……Respondents. Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Village development Officer in General Category, b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post 2 of Village Development Officer for the vacancies existing in the department. c. To issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, d. To award cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner. The facts of this case are identical to the case of writ petition no. 3141 (ss)2001 Jagdish Chandra Bhatt and three ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal decided by Hon’ble the Division Bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 17th May 2006. The mere deference is that, the case of Jagdish Chandra Bhatt belongs to district Pithoragarh; whereas the present petition pertains to district Tehri Garhwal. The controversy raised by means of this writ petition has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra Bhatt and 3 ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal in writ petition no. 3141 (ss)2001 decided vide order dated 17th May 2006. Thus, as stated above the facts of the present petition are identical to the Jagdish Chandra Bhatt’s case, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms and observations made in the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 17th May 2006 in the case of Jagdish Chandra Bhatt and 3 ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal in writ petition no. 3141 (ss)2001. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) February 19, 2007: NCM: