Er. Arvind Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3667 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1191 of 2021


Er. Arvind Singh and others                            .......... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                    ............ Respondents


Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.


                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

It is the case of the petitioner that having been appointed on contract basis, they have been working for a long with the respondents department. Their services have yet not been regularized. Not only this, an advertisement has been issued to appoint persons on the posts holds by the petitioners. Petitioners made representation, but it has yet not been decided. Petitioners have challenged the requisition sent by the department for filling up the vacancies and also their regularization and decision on their representation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similarly situated petitioners had earlier filed WPSS No.951 of 2021, Bipin Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, in which, the Court had issued certain directions on 02.08.2021, by directing the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners.

4. Learned State counsel admits that in the similarly situated cases instruction had already been issued.

5. The order dated 02.08.2021, passed in WPSS No.951 of 2021, reveals that, in fact, when the question of entertainability of the petition was raised, the prayer in that case was restricted to the extent that the respondents in that case be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners of that case.

6. In the instant case also, petitioners claims that they have already given a representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that directions may be given to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) within the given time.

8. On behalf of the State, a statement is given that the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) will be decided by the respondent no.2 within a period of two months from today.

9. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.2, to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) within a period of two months from today. But, in case, the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.09.2021 Sanjay