2025:UHC:5898-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/691/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Rahul Verma, Assistant Government Advocate for State/Appellants. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 1. 2. There is a delay of 141 days in filing this Appeal. For the reasons indicated, delay is condoned. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/13089/2018) stands disposed of. 3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3453 of 2017. The order impugned in this Appeal is extracted below:- “Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. C. S. Rawat, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, present for the State. Mr. Shivangi Gangwar, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3. Petitioner participated in the selection process for D.El.Ed. course. She was found suitable. She had applied under the OBC category but in the merit list her category was shown as General. petitioner has given her first choice District Haridwar, but she was sent to Pauri Garhwal. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the persons who have secured lesser marks in OBC category have been allotted the districts of their choice. This is not permissible. The candidate who has secured higher marks must be given her first choice. It is a case of discrimination. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allot the petitioner District Haridwar as per the merit list within four weeks from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 4. State has challenged the said order on the ground that writ petition was allowed without inviting counter affidavit, therefore version of the State could not be 2025:UHC:5898-DB placed before learned Single Judge. 5. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) however submits that in view of subsequent developments, he seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition; therefore, the Appeal may be disposed of. 6. In view of the statement made by Mr. Saini, learned counsel, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. In such view of the matter, the judgment impugned in this Appeal, shall also stand set aside. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.07.2025 Mahinder/